ETC Edison Technology Committee
Strategic Planning for Learning Through Technology

Minutes of meeting held
November 9, 2000

1. The meeting was convened at 3 p.m.  Patti Ross, Brad Reed, Chuck Jones, Mona Walters, Harry Lawhorn, Dennis Myers, Carol Rigola and Carol Marion were present.

2. The committee reviewed the draft of the consensus statement from the October meeting and agreed that the statement reflected the consensus of the committee. Dennis Myers reported that, as agreed, he had reviewed the statement with Dr. Yowell and that he has concurred with the consensus statement of purpose.

The committee adopted the following Mission Statement:

The mission of the Edison Technology Committee is to monitor emerging information technologies, particularly those that are adaptable to instructional purposes, and to assist the College’s strategic planning by making recommendations for the use of technology to improve the processes of teaching and learning.

The Mission Statement has been reviewed with and approved by Dr. Yowell.

3. The committee discussed at length its deliberative process. The consensus reached was that, as a committee focused on long-term, strategic goals, it should meet infrequently, but for a substantial period of time at each session. The committee concurred that for the remainder of this academic year it will meet in January, March, and May, and will likely move to a once-quarterly meeting schedule during 2001-2002. Sessions will be scheduled to allow for up to one half day of discussion and deliberation. All agreed that the sessions should be conducted in the morning and, preferably, off-campus. TLTR and CQI techniques will be used to build consensus on strategic technology goals.

Patti Ross suggested that committee members present to one another, prior to each meeting, research and supporting documentation for technology initiatives that are brought forward by each member. We will use the discussion site to reach agreement on the process for sharing information. Chuck Jones suggested using a "suggestion box" approach to the committee's Web site and the committee agreed to carefully develop an approach for allowing such input at some future time. There was further concurrence on having direct student input either through adding student representatives to the committee or by using student focus groups. Though no specific agreement was reached on student representation, the committee members agreed that it will seek out student input.

4. The committee agreed to meet again in January, 2001, with the time and date to be determined within the constraints of the Colleague system implementation and faculty schedules. The agenda for the January meeting will include a complete review of last year's goals and the establishment of new goals as developed through the consensus approach, the purpose being to arrive at a comprehensive technology recommendation to the College.

5. The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.