university of toronto mississauga instructional technologies …peters43/docs/ittffinal... · 2012....

Instructional Technologies Task Force Report of 29

University of Toronto Mississauga

Instructional Technologies Task Force Report

Membership: Cleo Boyd

Diane Crocker Dan DiCenzo

Laurie Harrison Avi Hyman

Simone Laughton Joe Lim

Rochelle Mazar César Mejía

Andrew Petersen Judith Poë

Tania Rodriguez Shafique Virani

Anil Vyas

May 1, 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1: CONTEXT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Introduction 2. Overview and Discussion

2.1 Overview 2.2 Scope 2.3 Situation Analysis

2.3.1 Stakeholders 2.3.2 Instructional Technologies at UTM 2.3.3 Gaps and Obstacles

3. Recommendations 3.1 Summary 3.2 Leadership and Support 3.3 Innovation in Technology-Enhanced Learning 3.4 Broader Technology Issues

PART 2: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Appendix A: Guiding Principles Appendix B: iClicker Use Case Appendix C: Language Labs Use Case Appendix D: Vision for Instructional Technologies at UTM Appendix E: Meetings Held


PART 1: CONTEXT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


1. Introduction Teaching and learning are at the heart of the University of Toronto Mississauga's (UTM’s) academic mission. As we envision our campus five years in the future, learning is the primary focus when we consider how technologies (existing and new) may be best leveraged to serve our students, teaching assistants, staff, and faculty. The appropriate, sustainable use of instructional technology is a necessary requirement as higher education institutions move towards learning-centered environments that balance the needs of the learner, the teaching preferences of the instructor, the subject matter, and the context. As tools, the effectiveness of new technologies will depend greatly on their suitability to the tasks at hand and the judgment and experience of those who wield them. UTM is an acknowledged leader in deploying and evaluating technologies within higher education contexts. This is in part due to its smaller campus size, informal and collaborative working relationships, nimble and cohesive working environment, and the expertise of a group of dedicated professionals. Although technologies will continue to change, the fundamental instructional needs and requirements of students, faculty, and others will continue to drive how we as a campus plan, implement, support, and evaluate the use of technologies to fulfill the University’s academic mission. Using technology to enhance teaching and learning activities requires a sustainable support structure. The quality of that structure impacts directly on how effectively technology is used on campus. With the advent of new technologies, one of the key challenges is to develop the more formalized structures, resources and processes that are required to engage students, teaching assistants, staff, and faculty in enriched learning and teaching experiences. Three key principles provide a foundation for the University's approach to instructional technologies.

● First and most importantly, the primary goal is learning. Instructors must be free to select the methods and tools that best suit the needs of their students and must have direct input into the development of accessible and engaging environments that are conducive to learning. At the same time, instructors must consider issues related to privacy, security, and accessibility.

● Second, as a tool within the instructor’s toolbox, technology does not replace people. Instead, it can be used to connect people through authentic and enriching experiences, and successful use of technology requires the collaborative efforts of students, instructors, librarians, instructional designers, system administrators, learning strategists, and many others. Any vision of instructional technology requires the involvement of multiple partners who play various roles in ensuring that faculty and students meet their respective learning needs and teaching requirements.

● Third, evaluation of learning and engagement is necessary to complete the cycle of deployment and use.


The ultimate aim is to come to a shared understanding of what works and what doesn’t work, and to communicate and learn from each other so that experience can inform practice.

2. Overview and Discussion 2.1 Overview In consultation with the community, the Instructional Technology Task Force (ITTF) has developed a shared vision for instructional technologies at UTM. During the consultation process, the ITTF:

● Conducted a situation analysis of existing instructional technology support and leadership;

● Identified gaps and obstacles to achieving a shared vision; ● Explored and made recommendations regarding instructional support structures (e.g.,

human or physical resources) for the campus; and, ● Investigated and recommended a sustainable model for the planning, implementation,

support, and evaluation of instructional technology at UTM. 2.2 Scope Many technologies and systems are used at UTM, and technology use on campus is a very broad issue. Recognizing the need to focus stakeholder discussions on the purpose of this document, the term “instructional technology” is defined as technologies that are used specifically for instructional activities to fulfill the academic mission of the University. The ITTF envisions a holistic and integrated approach to the planning, implementation, support, and evaluation of instructional technologies at UTM (and, by extension, influencing the entire university). Although there are groups on campus that have a single main focus (e.g., on infrastructure, pedagogy, administration, instructional technology, etc.), there are overlaps between the various groups that support teaching and learning activities through the use of technologies. The intention is that more formalized structures, resources and processes should be put into place to achieve a more integrated and holistic approach. Rather than focusing on details for specific instructional technologies on campus, this document recommends a model and framework to facilitate community discussion and collaboration and to enable more agile responses to changes in learning needs and teaching requirements. 2.3 Situation Analysis There are many groups on campus that facilitate instructional technology, and they have had significant success despite:

● much of the work being done through ad hoc and informal channels. ● limited visibility of the work that is being done. ● lack of clarity about where faculty and students should go for help.

There are additional challenges related to the equipping, resourcing, and use of instructional technologies at UTM campus. Approval for the selection and implementation of instructional technologies may vary depending on institutional focus, budgetary considerations, and identified


strategic priorities. Leadership and support structures for instructional technologies at the university vary, making it challenging to determine the best place to go to for support. Instructors may select and use different instructional technologies, but their use may be impacted by a variety of different factors, such as compatibility with available infrastructure. As new instructional technologies are introduced, careful consideration needs to be given regarding how alternative learning environments may be optimally used to support student learning. During the community consultation process a number of positive aspects of the UTM’s support for instructional technology were identified, including access to point of issue assistance in the classroom via the podiums, the friendliness of front line staff, and UTM’s adaptability, flexibility, and willingness to share. These aspects reflect the work of many different individuals in various units on campus. Main groups that provide support that is related to instructional technology at the UTM campus include: ● The Library - In addition to providing primary support for the institutional learning

management system at the UTM campus, the Library is a recognized leader for instructional technology innovation and support at the university. A wide range of resources have been developed to assist faculty, staff, and students regarding various instructional technologies such as Blackboard, iClickers, UTM Submit, and others. The key components of the Library’s support model structure are: ○ SPOCs - Recognizing that more targeted departmental staff was required, the

Instructional Technology and Emerging Technologies Librarians have developed a distributed network that includes at least one Single Point of Contact (SPOC) in each department. The SPOCs provide faculty with local and immediate help within the department, and knows how to escalate questions and feedback to the library when needed. SPOCs also act as a communication network; the library distributes information, tips and how-tos via the SPOCs, who then decide which elements are most relevant to faculty in their department.

○ Learning Commons - All library staff are trained to answer student questions, so that all students with questions or problems with courseware can get help from the learning commons staff, including from the HIT squad (student employees who support student technology-related issues) in person, and through other mechanisms, such as chat.

○ Faculty Consultation Program - The library provides a comprehensive consultation program, beginning with face to face sessions booked by each department in August or September, and followed up throughout the year via just-in-time “protips” delivered to faculty via the SPOCs. Instructional technology consultation support is also available throughout the year in a drop-in or appointment basis, via email, phone, or in person. Moreover, the library provides support for instructors interested in experimenting with new and emerging technologies as part of assignments or other coursework, from choosing the application to providing support materials for students.

In addition, the Library provides leadership for the Learning Technology Team, a collaborative cross-unit group, and provides representation on various university-wide committees related to instructional technologies (e.g., Blackboard User Group, NGSIS Program Working Group, UTMail+).


● Technology Resource Centre - In addition to providing a wide variety of services to support faculty and staff with respect to supporting the university’s research initiatives, the Technology Resource Centre focuses on providing multi-media support through webcasting and video conferencing, point-of-service support in the classrooms and troubleshooting. Most recently the Technology Resource Centre has taken on the additional responsibility of providing extensive technical support to the Mississauga Academy of Medicine and the new Instructional Building.

● UTM Computing Services - This unit provides development and infrastructure support for instructional technologies. UTM Computing Services has developed a number of software applications that are used by various departments, such as UTM Submit. In addition, they have developed specialized software (e.g., iClicker application to deliver real-time correlations of student responses, interface for iTunes U approval process). UTM Computing Services is the lead unit for infrastructure issues that may impact on instructional technology delivery, such as wireless and computer lab software outside of the Library.

● Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre -This group of dedicated professionals works closely with students and faculty to support teaching and learning. In addition to significant support for undergraduate and graduate skills development, they provide faculty support for pedagogical issues through educational development and instructional design, including sharing their expertise in assessment, microteaching, and conducting focus groups with students. These activities give faculty an objective way to assess innovative pedagogical practices and adjust them quickly if necessary. The RGASC has led the way in providing online student support for academic skills such as modules on writing and problem solving and has a faculty member dedicated to maintaining expertise in discipline-based pedagogies and instructional design. The RGASC also provides a venue for showcasing innovation in teaching and learning through the activities of the Teaching-Learning-Collaboration (TLC) Group.

There are also additional units that provide referrals and related support services, such as technical support staff (e.g., in the CCIT, Visual Studies programs, Department of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, and Department of Geography). Academic departments also have administrative staff (such as the Blackboard Single Point of Contacts (SPOCs) who provide assistance that is tailored to the needs of their respective departments. In addition, there are a number of other units on campus that are responsible for technologies and online communities that intersect and relate with instructional technologies, such as the Office of the Registrar, Human Resources, and Student Services.

2.3.1 Stakeholders There are multiple stakeholders who contribute to the development, implementation, support and evaluation of instructional technologies at UTM. These include academic leadership, the Academic Learning Centre (including the Library and the Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre), the Technology Resource Centre, Computing Services, and Academic Department and Unit students, faculty, and staff (e.g., System Administrators, Computing & IT specialists, Instructional Technologists, Blackboard Single Point of Contacts, etc.). In addition, educational


content from publishers and providers of third parties may need to be integrated into university instructional technologies. A preliminary stakeholder analysis is provided in Appendix E that provides some notes regarding examples of the roles played.

2.3.2 Instructional Technologies at UTM Instructional technologies provided at UTM may be defined as:

● Core Instructional Technologies - Those technologies that are centrally supported (originating at UTM, St. George or UTSC and may be available solely at UTM or across all three campuses) and are available to all academic departments and units. Examples: Institutional course management system (currently Blackboard), classroom response system, UTM Submit, Turnitin.com, classroom technologies, etc.

● Other Key Instructional Technologies - Technologies that are commonly used for

non-instructional purposes or that are used only within specific disciplines. Examples: Productivity software, accessibility, web and video conferencing, and discipline-specific software such as language learning software, R, Matlab, ChemDraw, Sniffy the Virtual Rat, OS/161, etc.

Two use cases have been prepared, one regarding the use of a classroom response system (a Core Instructional Technology) and one regarding Language Labs (an Other Key Instructional Technology). These two use cases indicate that multiple units and individuals are involved in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of these instructional technologies, and that at UTM different units may take the lead depending on the context. Instructional technologies may be integrated or standalone, used in blended learning or solely online approaches, and may have been developed in-house or elsewhere. Additionally, the associated data and information from instructional technologies may reside on University. servers or elsewhere. Furthermore, dependencies may exist between some of the instructional technologies that are used. For example:

● UTM Submit allows instructors to set up a connection so that student papers can be sent directly to the instructor created Turnitin.com account;

● Faculty can export data from iClicker sessions and upload it into their Blackboard course shell.

ITTF community consultations revealed the desire for improvements to infrastructure technologies, which includes items such as wireless, storage (network and multimedia), email, generic computer lab software, etc. The feedback received indicates that although these infrastructure technologies fall outside of the scope of the ITTF, these technologies, support and directly impact the successful planning and implementation of instructional technologies. Also, it should be noted that there are additional touch points between instructional technologies and other IT systems. For example,

● Applications developed by the Office of the Registrar (e.g., ROSI, eMarks, MAPS) and the institutional course management system; and,

● Human Resources Information System and the institutional course management system. Further consideration needs to be given regarding the typology of different instructional technologies at the university. The draft university typology framework could be used as a


starting point for the next stage of discussions regarding instructional technologies that are available on the campus.

2.3.3 Gaps and Obstacles The ITTF solicited input from within the task force and from community members including undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, teaching assistants, librarians, and departmental, administrative, and technical staff. The consultation process uncovered multiple gaps and obstacles to the development, deployment, and evaluation of instructional technologies. Three key themes were of concern to multiple stakeholders and were communicated in multiple forums:

1. Improved communication and coordination between units and across the entire University to remove redundancy, disseminate information, and focus efforts on strategic goals.

a. Collegial, inclusive, transparent processes for developing, adopting and sustaining instructional technologies and new initiatives.

b. Proactive coordination with groups (e.g., SPMC) that have responsibility for infrastructure that may impact the successful use of instructional technologies.

c. Communication channels for increasing awareness of the range of available instructional technologies.

d. Continuous faculty development to transfer learning, teaching and technology-related knowledge.

e. Better integration with units and initiatives on the other two U. of T. campuses. 2. A single location (a “one-stop shop”) for technical, pedagogical, and project

management support related to instructional technology in order to improve responsiveness and decrease barriers to adoption and experimentation.

a. Real-time assistance at point of issue (e.g., a classroom, Blackboard, etc.). b. Clear feedback regarding the status and proposed steps to address issues that

have been raised by students, faculty, and others. c. A safe space (physical and virtual) for collaboratively experimenting with,

developing, testing, evaluating and sharing instructional technologies. d. Support for grant proposal writing that is aligned with divisional strategic

priorities, technology infrastructure, and equipment procurement. 3. Accommodation of a variety of teaching styles and learning preferences in new,

upgraded, and virtual teaching spaces. a. Mechanisms for receiving faculty, teaching assistants, staff, and student

feedback on which technologies (especially “older” technologies) are in use and indispensable.

b. Processes for gathering current information about student learning needs.

In addition to these themes, several individual needs were also identified:


4. Practical support for creating, storing, using, and managing accessible digital academic content. In particular, it must be easy to create and share content while addressing copyright, privacy and intellectual property issues.

5. Better communication mechanisms to support learning in and out of the classroom. 6. Standard, comparable metrics for identifying effective use of instructional technologies.

(e.g., rate of uptake of a tool, average change between pre- and post- tests, or satisfaction as reported in a user survey.)

7. Time and resources for experimenting with new instructional technologies. All of these identified needs are important, and to allow UTM to react flexibly and quickly, strong leadership and robust, clear communication channels to the community are required.

3. Recommendations 3.1 Summary This section outlines recommendations that are intended to help establish more formalized structures, resources, and processes to ensure that UTM continues to be a leader in innovation, development of best practices, and excellence in service delivery with respect to instructional technologies. These recommendations are focused on the three main areas outlined below: Leadership and Support The development of more formalized structures are intended to ensure that UTM is positioned to meet the increasing requirements of sustainable, quality support for instructional technologies. 1. Establish a role that is responsible for representing and providing leadership on instructional

technology issues. This role reports to the Office of the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean and liaises with the Chief Librarian and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer.

2. Form an Instructional Technology Committee (ITC) to provide guidance regarding the adoption and use of instructional technologies.

3. Create, equip, and resource a Centre for Instructional Technology (CIT). Innovation in Technology-Enhanced Learning The second set of recommendations is intended to encourage the development of expertise in the integration of new approaches to online and in-class learning activities. 4. Establish a fund for Instructional Technology Projects (ITP) to encourage the development,

maturation, and evaluation of instructional technologies that are strategically important to UTM.

5. Encourage better sharing and further development of expertise in and the dissemination of effective practices related to instructional technology.

6. Develop and deploy tools and processes that encourage and facilitate the collection and analysis of data on the use and effectiveness of instructional technologies.


Broader Technology Issues Finally, this last recommendation acknowledges that there are broader technology issues that lie outside the scope of the ITTF. 7. Request that consideration be given to the formation of a Technology on Campus Task

Force to define a vision for broader technology support at UTM that considers the recommendations and information that has been gathered during the ITTF consultation process.

Further details regarding the recommendations are provided in the sections below. 3.2 Leadership and Support The community identified a need for better communication and coordination to foster innovation, promote collaboration, and reduce redundancy. Through the following recommendations, we seek to create a venue for community ideas and concerns to be heard and addressed and to designate a single point of contact accountable for promoting the development, use, deployment, and support of instructional technology at UTM. Recommendation #1 Establish a role, reporting to the Office of the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean and liaising with the Chief Librarian and Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, that is responsible for:

● Developing and leading a working group consisting of leaders whose portfolios include responsibility for instructional technology.

● Liaising with colleagues who are local (including the Director, Technology Resource Center; Director, Teaching and Learning Support and Innovation; and CIO), central (including the Director, Online Learning Strategies and the Director, Academic & Collaborative Technologies), and in other divisions to promote collaboration across all three campuses.

● Building strong partnerships among units and individuals engaged in the development, deployment, and support of instructional technology.

● Promoting and supporting instructional technology at UTM by chairing the ITC described in Recommendation #2 and representing instructional technology issues in appropriate groups (the IT Technical Operations Committee, Computing and Technology Subcommittee, Learning Technology Team, TLC, InTeGrate, Resource Planning and Priorities Committee (RPPC), Space Planning and Management Committee (SPMC), and Academic Affairs Committee), including university-wide groups.

● Overseeing a sustainable process for selecting or developing, deploying, supporting, and evaluating new instructional technologies.

● Encouraging the development and evaluation of new uses of instructional technology. ● Creating venues for disseminating information about the availability of instructional

technologies and best practices related to their use. Recommendation #2 Form an Instructional Technology Committee (ITC) to provide guidance regarding the adoption and use of instructional technologies at UTM. The ITC would be primarily responsible for:

● Providing a forum for discussing issues related to instructional technology at UTM.


● Review and update a situation analysis of instructional technology use and support at UTM. The analysis should document:

● Emerging needs and opportunities; ● Challenges related to instructional technology design, deployment, use

and support and issues regarding classroom technology requirements; ● Support for and usage of existing, deployed instructional technologies;

and, ● Interaction with units on the St. George and Scarborough campuses.

● Act as a conduit for the community consultation process to formulate and update a campus-wide strategic plan that provides a 5-year roadmap for instructional technology at UTM.

The ITC should be placed into an appropriate location in the new governance structure, perhaps as a subcommittee of the Academic Affairs Committee. The ITC should include representation from various constituencies including, at a minimum, students, faculty, accessibility staff, learning and instructional technology support staff, and campus leadership for technology-related issues. It should be chaired by the role defined in Recommendation #1, if that role exists, or by a designate of the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean. This next recommendation seeks to establish a Centre for Instructional Technology (CIT) with two primary goals:

1. Acting as a single point of contact for instructional technology issues where students, faculty, and staff can be directed to the assistance they need.

2. Providing a hub where community members interested in developing, using, or supporting instructional technologies can learn and collaborate with the aim of:

● Enhancing student learning. ● Mitigating potential risks to learning. ● Inspiring and supporting effective teaching. ● Minimizing additional burdens to instructors.

Since instructional technology at UTM is currently supported by multiple units on campus including the Library, the Technology Resource Centre, Computing Services, and the Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre, implementing this recommendation will require consultation between the Chief Librarian, Chief Administrative Officer of UTM , and the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean. Recommendation #3 Create, equip, and resource a Centre for Instructional Technology (CIT) at UTM to promote the development, selection, deployment, and use of instructional technologies in a manner that is informed by good pedagogical practice and research.

● Recommendation #3.1 The CIT should coordinate instructional technology and academic resources to strengthen the academic mission of the UTM. As a joint endeavour, the CIT should be directed by the individual who takes on the role from Recommendation #1 with responsibility to the Office of the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean and liaising with the


Chief Librarian and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer.

● Recommendation #3.2 The CIT should provide access to resources that assist students, teaching assistants, and instructors who are developing, exploring, experimenting with, and evaluating technologies in support of teaching and learning. These resources could include test and development servers, new and trial deployments, and point-of-issue / point-of-use support of new and trial instructional technologies.

● Recommendation #3.3

In coordination with the TLC, the CIT should organize an annual showcase for recognizing and disseminating innovative and effective uses of instructional technologies at UTM. The goal is to develop a community of practice regarding instructional technology issues in which concerns, questions, and ideas for improvement about using and evaluating instructional technologies can be raised and addressed.


Coordinating with the existing new instructor orientation and teaching assistant and faculty development programs, the CIT should highlight its services and support where relevant, including at new faculty and teaching assistant orientation.


The CIT should explore further mechanisms for developing and managing the matching of new instructors with an interest in instructional technologies with more experienced mentors in an instructional capacity. Where appropriate and depending on resources available, the CIT also could provide assistance matching instructors with pedagogical and technical points-of-contact associated with the CIT.

3.3 Innovation in Technology-Enhanced Learning New instructional technologies and best practices for deploying and using them are already being developed and employed by groups across campus. Many of these units have significant expertise with specific technologies, pedagogies, and problems, and instructional technologies they have deployed could be employed by other units on campus. However, without encouragement and resources, these technologies are unlikely to become sustainable or widely useful. In particular, projects that have been initiated using the resources established by Recommendation 3.2 may need further incubation to reach maturity.

● Recommendation #4 Establish a fund for Instructional Technology Projects (ITP) to encourage the integration, maturation, and evaluation of instructional technologies that are strategically important to UTM. The ITP, including the decision to issue a call, should be overseen by the role established in Recommendation #1, and the decision to award a project should be made by the ITC established in Recommendation #2. Priority should be given to projects that build institutional capacity and expertise, demonstrate long-term sustainability, and provide an evaluation for the impact of the technology on learning and engagement.


During the consultation process, several high-priority needs for the campus were identified, and in many cases, groups on campus are already experimenting with and developing research-supported solutions for these needs. This combination of a need and localized expertise make these areas ideal first ITP calls for proposals.

● Recommendation #5 Encourage the better sharing and further development of expertise in and the dissemination of effective practices related to instructional technology for:

● Implementing learning objects and skill development aids for online and blended learning courses. (e.g. online videos and self-diagnostics.)

● Encouraging online interaction between instructors and students and among students. (e.g., virtual office hours, social media, and discussion boards.)

● Designing and deploying accessible teaching and learning materials and activities. (e.g., captioned videos and auto-transcription.)

● Encouraging academic integrity in online activities. (e.g., auto-generated customized problem sets.)

● Supporting asynchronous and physically distributed interaction. (e.g., wikis, Google docs, and discussion boards.)

To identify the need for improvement and to make reasoned judgments about the effectiveness of new technologies and processes, appropriate metrics must be identified, and relevant data regarding tool usage, student engagement, and student learning outcomes must be collected and analyzed. The Office of the Registrar is already a leader in the collection, distribution, and analysis of student data in a manner that protects student privacy and complies with current legislation (including FIPPA and copyright agreements). Implementing the following recommendation will require consultation between the Office of the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean and the Office of the Registrar.

● Recommendation #6 Identify a broad set of metrics (e.g., rate of usage, student success, and student engagement) that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional technologies, and deploy tools and processes that encourage and facilitate the collection and analysis of this data.

3.4 Broader Technology Issues During the community consultations, participants did not differentiate between “technology” and “instructional technology.” Instead, they perceived aspects of technology on campus from a broader perspective and noted what is currently working and what is not. Furthermore, the development of the use cases highlighted the complexity of support and deployment of instructional technology at this campus and revealed some of the dependencies that exist between core instructional technologies, other key instructional technologies and infrastructure technologies. These dependencies and the tendency of users to not recognize administratively-defined boundaries leads to confusion about where technology is being supported and how to obtain assistance.


However, the ITTF reports to the Vice-Dean, Undergraduate, and the task force scope was further defined during the community consultation process to be “technologies that are used specifically for instructional activities to fulfill the academic mission of the University”. As the scope of the Instructional Technologies Task Force does not encompass all technology at UTM, it may be helpful for a broader group to more thoroughly review technology on this campus.

● Recommendation #7 Request that consideration be given to the formation of a Technology on Campus Task Force to define a vision for broader technology support at UTM that addresses coordination issues between different units and considers the recommendations and information that has been gathered during the ITTF consultation process. Reporting through the governance process, the task force could explore and develop recommendations as to how broader technology issues can be supported in a manner that is more transparent to users. In particular, this group could consider:

● How to seamlessly and uniformly provide access to technology support, software and data across campus and on student, staff, and faculty personal devices.

● How to purchase, support, and advertise the availability of resources, like site-licenses, that have both research and instructional use and/or that are of use to multiple units on campus, and explore opportunities to leverage the purchasing power of all three campuses.

● Whether select staff should be cross-trained so they can resolve common problems while monitoring the Computing Services help desk and the Technology Resource Centre intercom system. In addition, consider and explore initiating referral training with other units.

● Whether it is feasible to deploy a single trouble-ticket system on campus so that issues can be easily escalated between units and tracked by the user who entered the ticket.


PART 2: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION


Appendix A: Guiding Principles These three key principles were drawn from the “Statement of UTM Values to Guide Academic Planning.” The ITTF has identified seven principles related to instructional technology:

● UTM maintains a commitment to a rich and positive student academic experience, both inside and outside the classroom, and to supporting students in their achievement of their current academic goals and the acquisition of lifelong learning skills. The skills we convey include ones that enable our students to be thoughtful global citizens capable of critically reflecting on the world in its complexity.

○ UTM is committed to providing students, faculty, and others with a positive experience when using instructional technologies.

○ UTM is committed to minimizing the negative impacts of deploying and using new instructional technologies.

● UTM values excellence in teaching, aiming always to recruit faculty committed to teaching of the highest quality, and offering supports to all instructors striving for pedagogical and instructional excellence.

○ UTM is committed to a safe environment for exploring, deploying, and evaluating the creative and innovative use of learning technologies where evaluation focuses on learning effectiveness, accessibility, and efficiency.

○ UTM supports the dissemination of best practices in deploying and using learning technologies.

○ UTM encourages the use of goal-based, collaborative consultation to support the exploration, deployment, use, and evaluation of learning technologies.

○ UTM recognizes that there are a variety of effective applications of instructional technologies to teaching and learning and supports the freedom of faculty and others to use and explore those that are most appropriate and effective to their specific contexts.

● UTM’s courses, programs and scholarship will be supported by strong and engaging library collections, resources and services, innovative information technologies, and teaching and learning spaces that will enrich and enliven the academic experience.

○ UTM is aware that instructional technologies must be deployed within the context of the learners using the technology, the desired learning outcomes, and the infrastructure available.


Appendix B: iClicker Use Case Introduction The integration of technology to support instruction within higher education courses can be an iterative and multi-layered effort that requires the involvement of many different players. There are many different aspects to the iClicker use case provided below that are informative to understanding how technologies are selected, implemented, and evaluated. Some reflections regarding this use case are provided below.

1. Faculty are the primary drivers of the process. They identify a need, self-advocate, and are involved in the selection, implementation, and evaluation of the technologies that will best meet their identified teaching requirements and the learning needs of their students.

2. A centralized institutional response can have the benefit of increased comfort levels if the same technology is used across all 3 campuses. Additionally, faculty and students build knowledge and experience with using the technology potentially resulting in reduced amounts of time for faculty and students to use a technology effectively. Several potential disadvantages are the possibility that the centralized response does not meet all of the diverse teaching requirements and learning needs. Also, there may be roadblocks to innovation as the initiative and will to try new methods and approaches may come up against institutional inertia. Finally, additional costs to students are a potential disadvantage that should be avoided as much as possible.

3. The successful student and faculty experience is made possible through the teamwork of many different groups that are involved in the resourcing and delivery of instructional technology services and support.

4. In evaluating the technology it is essential to include both the people who are using it to meet their teaching requirements and also the students to ascertain if the technology is meeting their learning requirements. Part of the evaluation also should consider a sustainable model for technical and pedagogical support.

5. Considerations for improvement need to be owned and there needs to be follow through. Background Classroom Response Systems were first introduced to the UTM campus by faculty interested in experimenting with these types of technologies. A key concern was to find a way to gather immediate feedback from students during class time. For example, faculty wanted to determine if students had understood concepts that were being discussed, to encourage students to complete the readings prior to coming to class, to support student learning through the prediction of classroom physics demonstration experimental results, to capture feedback regarding the pace of the lectures, and other purposes. During the initial stages, faculty were involved in exploring the different classroom response systems available. One Classroom Response System, iClicker, was eventually selected as the centrally supported classroom response system provider for the university. This decision is reviewed every couple of years to determine if there are other technologies that are available that may be more efficient and effective to meet the functional requirements of faculty. Here is a listing of some of the stakeholder analysis information specific to iClickers.

1. The UTM Library instructional technology provides coordination with CTSI to ensure a base unit is ordered for faculty, and provides an introduction to faculty and an overview


of some best practices and experiences of other faculty with respect to using this technology. During the initial meeting faculty are provided with the functionalities and the affordances of the technology to help them to determine if iClickers are the best means to do what they want to do.

2. The UTM Library instructional technology, together with the Learning Technology Team, organizes and hosts sessions about the technology – for iClickers, a series of sessions were captured with the help of Classroom Technology Support and are archived and available to be viewed by faculty. The sessions included presentations by the inventor of the technology and UTM faculty who have used the technology, and a faculty member who created an application to be used with the technology.

3. UTM Library instructional technology develops learning resources - e.g., captioned videos for students on how to use the technology are uploaded to the UTM Library YouTube channel.

4. UTM Library instructional technology provides support to faculty and TAs to upload and manage the data received from iClickers into the institutional learning management system (Blackboard).

5. Some Departmental Tech Support provide help to TAs and faculty who have questions regarding iClickers.

6. The Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre (RGASC) supports development of questions for use in class and provides pedagogical support to faculty.

7. Classroom Technology Support handles point-of-issue support. 8. The bookstore is involved, as they handle distribution of student handheld units. 9. CTSI is responsible for the university-wide RFP that determines what the centrally

supported classroom response system will be. 10. CTSI has developed guidelines and resources for the use of iClickers (e.g., Grading and

iClickers: http://www.teaching.utoronto.ca/teaching/essentialinformation/educationaltechnology/iclicker/using-crs/grading.htm)

11. An instructor worked with UTM Computing Services in order to develop a statistical tool that can be used to analyze real-time data. This was possible because the iClicker company shared the software code so that it could be adapted.

12. Faculty and the UTM Library instructional technology have worked on several research projects to gather student feedback regarding the effective use of the technology and the impact on learning.

13. In partnership with Classroom Technology Support, UTM Library instructional technology provides some basic troubleshooting and referral. As well, the Library Hit Squad provides support for students who need to retrieve the iClicker handheld unit unique ID if it has rubbed off.

14. UTM Library instructional technology, when requested by the faculty member, will act as a liaison with the classroom response system company for technical issues that cannot be solved in house.


Additional considerations: ● Some faculty are cross-appointed, which means that sometimes they make a request

directly to CTSI. When this happens we may not know that they are using the technology at UTM campus and that they may need support.

● The student registration system currently is situated off campus on iClicker servers. It may be preferable to have an in-house registration system so that this data resides on university servers.

● There is a Blackboard building block; it may be advisable to explore how this type of technology can be better integrated into current workflows.


Appendix C: Language Labs Use Case Introduction Language Labs provide much needed support to learners who are developing their knowledge of, skills and experience with other languages. There are many different groups that are involved in ensuring that the lab supports faculty teaching and student learning activities. Some reflections regarding this use case are provided below.

● Faculty determine the software that may be needed to support language learning in the lab.

● Faculty do not have administrator access to the computers if software updates are required. Also, more than one instructor uses the lab, which means that different software that is used to support teaching and learning activities may require different configurations.

Background The Language Labs used to be provided through dedicated labs that were previously available in the North Building. They are currently provided in computer labs in the CCIT building. The Department of Language Studies has preferred booking for CCT1160 to support instructors and students. Below is a listing of some of the stakeholder analysis information specific to the Language Lab provided in CCT1160.

1. The computer lab comes under the auspices of Computing Services. 2. The instructor determines the software that they will be using to support the online

learning and teaching activities. Specialized language learning software is provided by the Department.

3. Ensuring that the affordances and accommodations provided by the discipline-specific software will meet the instructor’s teaching requirements and learning needs of the students the lab is the responsibility of the instructor.

4. The creation of content using the software that has been installed in the computer lab is the responsibility of the instructor and the students.

5. Computing Services installs software and maintains the student computers in the lab. a. Priority for software installation is given to generic software that is used by more

than one department. b. Requests to install discipline-specific software that has been paid for by the

department need to be made a minimum of 14 business days prior to the beginning of the semester.

c. The instructor is responsible for ensuring that installation requests include complete and up-to-date information regarding minimum hardware and software configuration requirements.

d. Management of the software licenses for the computer labs used for the Language Labs comes under the auspices of Computing Services.


e. Requests to update discipline-specific software that is used by only one department during the term will be subject to review on a case-by-case basis depending on configuration, security, and resource considerations.

6. If an instructor or students encounter any issues with the computers in the lab, they need to contact the Computing Services Help Desk as soon as possible.

7. Classroom Tech Support provides assistance to faculty with respect to the podiums in the lab. Classroom Tech Support provides assistance to faculty with respect to the podiums in the lab.

8. The Department of Language Studies books the lab using the ORBS system (developed by the Office of the Registrar).

9. If changes are required to the physical layout of the lab and if upgrades are required, then requests need to be coordinated with the other users of the lab and should go forward to the Space Planning Management Committee (SPMC).

Additional Considerations

● UTM policy and guidelines for lab software are to fund generic software (e.g., Office, SPSS, Minitab) that is used by more than one department. The cost of software licenses for course specific software (e.g., Adobe Creative Suite (CCIT), Matlab (Psych)) is paid for by the department. Open source software or freeware may be added on a case-by-case basis depending on security, configuration, and resource considerations.

● Students need to provide their own headphone with built-in microphone. Students may purchase headphones from the UTM Bookstore or demonstrate that they have compatible headphones that meet the minimum requirements for the Language Labs. NOTE: Any ancillary fees for the Language Labs (e.g., for headphones) need to be approved by the Office of the Dean.

● Speakers need to work on the computers if students do not have access to headphones. ● Instructors who wish to update the software on the podium and on the student

computers require assistance, as they do not have administrative access to the labs. As more than one instructor uses the lab, there may be different computer configurations required for the different software used in the lab.

● Fonts need to display correctly on the computers in the lab. ● Space design and layout is a concern. What is the process to ensure that the design

and layout meet the teaching requirements and learning needs of the students?


Appendix D: Vision for Instructional Technologies at UTM These vignettes describe how well-supported Instructional Technologies could be used at the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM) to help students, faculty, and others learn efficiently and effectively. Although the technological landscape over the next 5 years will change, our vision is focused on providing the best possible support for students, faculty and others with examples that use the 2012 technologies with which we are familiar. Ideally, the support structures, resources, and processes that result from this community consultation process will be robust, flexible, and adaptable enough to leverage the affordances that new technologies will provide in 2017. In this ideal vision, students, faculty and others are involved directly in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of instructional technologies. Instructional technology is being used to support course assignments that are personally meaningful, engaging, and useful within the broader community, and student feedback helps guide the evolution of the technology use. Faculty have welcoming, easy-to-use, and functional spaces that accommodate their own teaching styles, and they know that they have the support they need to try new approaches and explore different technologies for teaching and learning. Others involved in supporting the academic mission of the university are a core part of the learning team: they can bring forward relevant information and share issues openly and easily. All of these goals are supported by a campus Centre for Instructional Technology (CIT). At the CIT, the UTM community can work with experienced staff with knowledge of technology, instructional technology, and pedagogy. They can explore, experiment, and learn about instructional technologies in a friendly and informal environment. They also can gather to discuss what is working and what isn’t working and to share ideas for new and innovative initiatives. The CIT provides a place for inclusive and open strategic planning, consultation, and communication to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of and have a voice in building consensus regarding campus instructional technology priorities.


The Student Experience New Student A new student has just arrived on campus for her first day of classes. Over the summer, she attended a series of orientation workshops that taught her about the types of technology she would have access to and how to best use the technology to support her learning styles. Before classes even started, she learned how to log into and set up her own suite, which can be customized to fit her personal learning needs. For example, through her suite she is able to choose from a list of educational and organizational tools to integrate into her homepage. On her homepage she chooses to have a quick view of her e-mails, her personal calendar, and a quick search French-English dictionary tool. Best of all, she was able to choose the layout of her homepage, so she knows exactly where everything is and what it does. She also has an academic page, where she can see what academic events are taking place on campus and find links to academic resources such as the Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre website. There is also an online portfolio option that she can use to showcase the work that she creates over the next four years. Whenever she ran into technological issues she was able to find a solution through the CIT website where she found comprehensive video tutorials, posted questions on the help forum, and even chatted live with support staff during business hours. Now that she is on campus, she knows that she can visit the CIT in person for technical support and workshops. A One-Stop Place for Sharing and Support Students have identified their own learning needs and have a central place on campus where they can go to get help with instructional technology issues, be referred to appropriate services, find information, and access resources. They know that the service points available to them are integrated in such a way that the information students provide will be communicated to the appropriate unit and will be addressed.

● Multimedia - A second year student needs to record an audio file for her French class. She’s gone over all the instructions on the course website, and has watched the video created by the CIT on how to record from her laptop. It seems pretty easy, but if she runs into any trouble, she knows she can get help from the CIT.

● Introduction to new tools - Students in a facilitated study group at the Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre have expressed concerns about a new assignment submission system. Their concerns are addressed at a subsequent session when they have a 10- minute introduction from the Centre for Instructional Technology staff to the new tool and are shown where they can access resources on how to use it.

● Encouraging exploration and experimentation - A student has the option of using virtual world tools for an assignment. He’s never built anything in a virtual world before, but he’s not worried; he knows where to start. The CIT provides a space where he can go and explore the software and build his confidence in using it. They are holding a series of sessions on what the tools can do and how to use them, and his TA will be there to guide him. He’s downloaded the software onto his laptop, but he’s going to start his project in the CIT during their workshop hours for his class, just in case he needs help.


● Support for collaborative work - A group of graduate students have decided that they would like to have a collaborative space where they can share and discuss different chemical structures. They go to the CIT to find out what is available to them and to be provided with the resources and know-how to get up and running.

● Better communication and integration of services - Students know that they can go to any service point and notify staff that something related to instructional technology is not working. The information will be relayed to the CIT, which will provide current information regarding the status and the expected time when it will be repaired. Students and the service points they contact can receive updates through digital signage, on the website, through social media, and on a variety of different devices.


The Faculty Experience New Faculty A new faculty member arrives on campus for the first time. He meets his Department Chair and the Department staff. Then, he steps into his office and logs into the new computer he finds there. He’s been told that all of the machines on campus run a core set of applications, and he’s pleased to see that all the software needed in his discipline is included. He can ask his students to use the same tools he uses for research. He knows that he can step into any classroom and the software that he has specified will be automatically available. A new colleague drops by to welcome him and to encourage him to attend the biannual faculty support meeting for the department. Several faculty attend the meeting remotely due to time constraints, and the department faculty briefly present their experiences with technology supported teaching techniques they tried in the previous term. He has an opportunity to discuss what it is he wants to do, and what has worked and not worked in the past. Staff from the CIT are there to hear what the faculty in his department want to do and to hear the department’s technology needs and concerns. They also provide an update on issues raised in previous meetings and inform the faculty of new initiatives on campus. The meeting gives him some ideas for his new course, and he’s also made new connections with the learning and technology facilitators on his mentoring team. Faculty Support Faculty have a space where they can explore a range of well-integrated tools available to them in order to meet their instructional technology requirements. They can select the spaces for their classes that will best meet their teaching style and provide their input regarding their requirements for the new and existing spaces in which they teach.

● Faculty introduction to new tools - It is the end of the term, and an instructor goes to the CIT open house is being held. Her colleagues have been busy -- some are recording lectures and using class time for inquiry-based learning activities, others are involving students in content creation by recording audio and images for a class e-book. She learns about some of the benefits and drawbacks of each tool as identified by the colleagues who tried it. She asks the staff at the CIT for help. They tell her that they can help her get started and have suggestions about important issues like accessibility and privacy. If she needs help with the in-class activities, they have several examples from other faculty in her discipline. They make arrangements to talk more about it after the open house.

● Referrals to the appropriate source - A faculty member has just reviewed the latest assignment submissions from the assignment submission tool he is using and is disheartened to see an increase in the number of plagiarism cases. He is referred by CIT staff to experts at the Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre who have researched and developed a successful approach to teaching students about how to recognize plagiarism and avoid it.

● Adaptation of instructional approaches to engage students - An instructor leans away from her computer, discouraged. The student survey she ran online indicates that her class is not engaging with the online discussions of readings. She meets with her


learning and technology facilitators at the CIT to discuss how to encourage students to complete the readings before class. Her team provides her with help getting the tools set up for her course, examples of best practice when using online discussions, and other tools, and, most importantly, connects her with a mentor – an experienced colleague from another department who is using the same online discussion technique and tools. She decides to call her mentor to set up a meeting. The two spend a half-hour discussing how they have introduced the tools in their classes and how that has affected student outcomes. They both obtain new insights for encouraging participation.

● Integration of multimedia and other resources - Over several years an instructor has developed a rich set of multimedia resources including high-resolution digital images, videos, and audio files to support his classroom activities. Now he is running out of storage space and is unsure of what delivery options might be available. He goes to the CIT for help. They show him the options that are available, and well before the first class begins they have tested the best solution.

● Well functioning, adaptable instructional spaces - When an instructor steps into the classroom, she knows that she can easily log into the podium, and that all of the software applications she requires for her class will be ready for her to use. The space can be reconfigured depending on the activities she has planned for that class. Additionally, she has the reassurance of having immediate remote assistance available to her at the push of a button. She has recently learned about a new classroom innovation and knows she can go to the CIT to make recommendations about the teaching spaces that will be brought forward for planning for the next cycle of instructional space renewal.


Other Community Members Academic Departmental Point-of-Contact The Department Chair has asked a new staff member to take on the role of the Academic Department Single Point of Contact (SPOC). He learns that he will be the key point person for the Department students, faculty, and staff for issues related to the institutional learning management system. He will have training provided by the CIT staff and have access to a wide variety of resources. In his new role, he will become part of a communication network to relay issues that have been encountered by students and faculty and also to receive updates to share with them about new upgrades, improved functionalities, possible downtimes, and improvements being proposed. He has been asked by a faculty member to assist with the establishment of an online environment to support skill development in the Department’s large first-year course. The online environment would integrate resources from multiple on-campus units including the Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre (RGASC), the Career Centre, Student Services, and the UTM Library, among others. The SPOC will need to work with the department’s students, staff, and faculty to set up the online environment and to gather feedback about its effectiveness. As a first step, the SPOC contacts the CIT to ask if other departments have set up similar environments. He is connected with people in other departments who have worked on similar projects and is given access to several examples that have been deployed by other departments. He sees that the RGASC and Library have already collaboratively developed modules on writing and research resources that his department could use. After he identifies an example to use as a starting point, the CIT staff help him to set up an initial environment that includes a built-in feedback mechanism. He can customize the environment for his department. He arranges a midterm follow-up meeting to analyze the usage data and student feedback to customize the tool. After the term ends, he’ll set up another meeting with student volunteers and faculty to improve the tool further. Technology Support Innovation A Departmental Technology Support Specialist has attended a conference where she has learned about a new open source quiz and survey tool that meets the accessibility requirements of students and faculty. She has spoken with the developers and has gathered information about the technical requirements, and notes (with delight) that it is possible to migrate already developed content into the system (no re-entry of data required). It is also possible export content out in a format that can be added easily into other systems. This tool includes support for MathML, and other XML-based languages, so other departments could potentially use it. She brings her discovery to her Department and shares this information with the technology folks at the CIT, which organizes a meeting of interested departments and works with other campus units to ensure that the software is installed and tested to determine if it is a useful tool that could be beneficial to more than one department. Following the testing, the tool is rolled out to the campus with complete documentation, pilot project implementation examples, and evaluation information from students and faculty. It is evaluated on a biennial basis to determine if it still useful and to see if there may be other tools that better meet the continually evolving academic needs and requirements of students and faculty.


Appendix E: Meetings Held Community Consultation Meetings:

● March 29: Learning Technology Team Notes ● April 3: Blended and Online Learning Notes ● April 12: Student 'Cookie and Consult' Event ● April 12: Early Adopters Meeting - 10 am ● April 12: Early Adopters Meeting - 2 pm ● April 20: Department and TA meetings ● April 23: Departmental Blackboard Single Point of Contact meeting ● April 23: Open student meeting

Instructional Technologies Task Force Meetings:

● March 6: Review of Background Documents ● March 15: Defining "Instructional Technology" and UTM's Needs ● March 23: Discussion of Draft Introduction, Vision, and Recommendations ● March 28: Discussion of Revised Vision and Recommendations ● April 4: Presentation of UTM Community Feedback to Vision ● April 26: Final Discussion of Report