Eastern Oregon University

Technology Fee Committee

Recommendations for Academic Year 2007-08

Introduction

The Technology Fee Committee met regularly during the Fall and Winter terms of the 2007-08 school year to discuss proposals and other technology concerns on campus. As the committee deliberated, it was apparent that all the proposed projects had value and would enhance the learning experience for EOU students.

The committee meetings are open to any interested member of the university community. Other faculty, staff, and students were invited to attend at various times to provide additional proposal information regarding specific proposals. The recommendations presented here are the work of the following:

Committee Members:
Faculty Chair: Brian Sather

Student Vice-Chair:  Charles Martin

Marian Mustoe , faculty

Linda Fratzke, faculty

Frederick Pratter, faculty

Tom Herrmann, faculty

Molly Litchfield , student

Janet Jessup , student

James Tilley, student

Calli Nelson, student

Resource Members--non-voting:

Anna Maria Dill, Learning Center

Karen Clay , Pierce Library

Paul Rowan , Information Technology Department

Committee Administrative Support

Helen Moore, Information Technology Department

EOU Technology Fee Committee Recommendations

Procedure:

We followed the principles established by our charge http://www.eou.edu/techfee/tfcharge.html

• Each proposal had to meet the general requirement outlined in the Project Submission and Project Reporting Guidelines at  http://www.eou.edu/techfee/SubmissionProcess.html
• Proposals that met these criteria were ranked on five categories below and then they were voted on after a thorough discussion:
• Number of students directly affected by the proposal
• Creation of a new capacity not currently available to students
• Enhancement of an existing capacity available to students
• Potential impact on the quality of instruction and learning
• Matching Funds

Committee members ranked each proposal using a three-point scale (3=high/ 2=medium/ 1=low) on each of these five criteria. Helen Moore cumulated the scores and produced the attached ranking sheet. Proposals are sorted by their ranking. The following is the recommendation in the context of the $161,225 budget presented for this year's Technology Fee allocations.

Narrative

Kerry Loewen, “Projector, DVD Player & Sound System for Art/Media Arts”.

           Approved as submitted - $7,565.00

David Komito, “Expanded Bandwidth for Instruction”.

           Approved as submitted - $19,200.00

Kat Galloway, “Art and Media Arts ‘Filling in the Blanks’ Proposal”.

           Approved as submitted - $4,300.00

Jon Norris, “Computer-based Teaching Facility”.

The vote on the proposal was split; the four student members present voted against the proposal, the five faculty members present voted for it.  Approved for funding as submitted - $58,000.00

Students had several concerns including:

• The location – they felt Inlow Hall was not a good location for a classroom
• Why laptops versus desktops?
• Is there really a need for this type of facilities

Faculty and resource members explanations included:

• They agreed that Inlow was not an ideal location for the classroom,  but  after exhaustive searching it is the only one available
• Laptops were chosen to provide for multi-use of the room and because they would be easier to relocate if another room is found.
• There is a tremendous need for this type of facility.  Currently there is only one place where students can have hands-on access to computers in a classroom setting and there are only 16 stations available.  This space is heavily used for classes and it takes away from general student use whenever it is used as a classroom.

Lorna Williamson, “Replacement of Analog with Digital Spectronic 20D+”.

          Approved as submitted - $3,400.00

Jay VanTassell, “ESRI ArcGIS Site License for EOU”.

            Approved as submitted - $3,500.00 (this will be an ongoing expense)

Terry Walters, “Computer for Salem Center”.

          Approved as submitted - $8,308.00

Beth Upshaw, “Technology for Master of Teacher Education Students”.

           At a previous meeting, Jon Norris presented a revised version of this proposal.  The proposal was approved as revised - $20,000.00

Zachary Heath, “Biofeedback Devices for Aerobic Performance Training”.

           Approved as submitted - $4,506.00

Ray Brown, “Camcorders for MTE Students”.

It was agreed that the camcorders would be housed in the Media Library to allow access for the entire student body.  The check out policy would be basically the same as is currently in place for the equipment in the Media Library that was purchased for the Media Arts program.  The policy would allow MTE students to have priority in the check-out process.  Approved as amended - $2,900.00

 

Mary Fields, “Coos Bay Extended Campus Technology Enhancement”.

          Approved as submitted - $720.00

Nick Romriell, “Laptop & Office Computers for ASEOU”.

          Surplus desktops to be used as available instead of purchasing new systems.  Laptop and software approved as requested.  Approved as amended -$2,500.00

Nick Romriell, “Digital Signage”.

ASEOU must work with the IT Department to insure a strategic plan is developed and followed in planning and purchasing the sign(s).  Reduced amount approved as amended - $25,000.00

Shantra Hannibal, “ARS Poetica Technology Proposal”.

Surplus computer to be used instead of purchasing a new system.  Software, monitor, printer & Gizmo approved as requested.  Approved as amended - $600.00

 

Daniel Harrington, “Oregon East Computer Replacement”.

          Surplus computer to be used instead of purchasing a new system.  Software, monitor and hard drive approved as requested.  Approved as amended - $500.00

Jeff Johnson, “Ackerman 210 Sound System”

          Based on input from student members the committee agreed that the sound system currently in the room is adequate.  Not recommend for funding.

James Williams, “Black Student Union Laptop”

Committee decided not to fund purchase of laptop.  Calli Nelson noted that the BSU should have an office in the Hoke Center in the near future.  The BSU is encouraged to work with the IT Department to get a surplus desktop computer, once they have moved into their new office.  Not recommended for funding.