Canvas Migration Advisory Committee

Canvas Migration Advisory Committee January 21, 2015, 11am – 11:50 am, Knight Library Rowe Conference Room Meeting Notes

In attendance: Tyler Brandt, Sara Brownmiller, Helen Chu, Edward Davis, Nina Fox, Chuck Kalnbach, Tim Ketchum, Amy Neutzman, Jason Stone Unavailable: Sue Eveland, Ian McNeely, Bree Nicollelo, Michael Price.

Meeting Notes 1. Introductions 2. Review committee charge: The CMAC is an ad hoc committee charged with informing and guiding the actions of the Canvas Migration implementation, user training and support teams. Discussion items will include but are not limited to process, policies and training strategies, etc. It is anticipated that the CMAC will be meeting every other week through the migration period and will conclude their service by or during Fall term 2015. A Canvas advisory committee will be created towards the conclusion of the CMAC service period. 3. Schedule recurring meetings. a. We will meet every other week. b. Agendas and notes, as well as regular updates, etc. will be posted to the Canvas blog, http://blogs.uoregon.edu/canvas/cmac/ 4. Overview of committee function and timeline considerations: We have a very tight implementation and migration timeline and thus may be sending out information via email as well. 5. Review proposed timeline a. See working timeline. This is a VERY aggressive timeline. CMET has increased temporary staffing (GTFs) this year to assist in the migration, and will engage as many campus partners, instructional technologists, IT support professionals, faculty, GTFs, and students as possible to assist in the effort. This is and will continue to be truly a campus initiative. b. View in progress technical timeline c. Hard Deadline for the completion of the migration is September 30, 2015.

6. Suggestions for Faculty outreach, incentives for migrating early, brainstorm around potential elements to ease migration effort. a. Incentive to migrate this spring: Faculty and GTFs migrating this spring will have higher support levels during this academic year, thanks to the 5 LMS GTFs the UO Libraries was allocated to support this transition. GTF allocations will be submitted again this year for the next academic year, but the timeline for these processes is just beginning now; decisions are not expected to be finalized until the May timeframe. b. A suggestion was made to identify and recruit volunteers for faculty champions, resident in the departments who can answer preliminary questions about the migration, assist as they feel comfortable, and connect their colleagues with support professionals. b.i. Rationale: Faculty are busy and will not have the time to go out of their way to find people to help them. b.ii. Potential departmental Canvas Champions may include departmental admins, faculty, GTFs, who are also assisted by local support (local IT, instructional technologists, LMS GTFs, etc.) b.iii. Another suggestion was to create an advisory group of faculty champions that includes someone from each department, however, these numbers may become unwieldy. c. Outreach through TEP? – via their mailing lists, newsletters.etc. d. Think about how often we will communicate to faculty, students, GTFs, staff. Write out the plan and multiply it by 10. e. Get into the department meetings. f. Everyone agreed that communications must be face to face, though it was noted that this approach will required a LOT of campus visits. Do something similar to the class visits by CMET to the courses in the spring 2014 pilot? Hand out schwag so that students, faculty and GTFs know how to get support from CMET: [email protected] and 6-1942/Knight Library Room 19 and 31. g. To ensure that we communicate with those on sabbatical, request a list of faculty on sabbatical / leave from Academic Affairs and/or the Department Chairs. h. Suggested Content of Communications / Answers to the major questions faculty will ask? (FAQs) h.i. In the communications, it will be helpful to explain the mechanisms of migration. What will the migration be like? h.ii. If you use Bb as an archive, download those materials from older courses. h.iii. Include in faculty communication what the student support will be. We are in the process of setting up meetings with student help desk providers and will include results from the meetings in the communication. h.iv. A suggestion was made to make it VERY clear that the hard deadline for migration off Bb is September 30, 2015, and that there will be financial penalties for not complying. h.v. How much time per course can faculty/GTFs expect to spend to work on the migration? h.vi. How much time per course can faculty/GTFs expect to spend on building a course from scratch? h.vii. Things you can do in Canvas that you can’t do in Bb. E.g. discussion boards, student ID photos, Speedgrader, rubrics, h.vii.1. TEP: figure out what problems these solve for faculty and communicate these from that perspective in the faculty testimonials, workshops, etc. h.viii. Faculty on 9 month contract who don’t work in the summer? – Target them for Spring. h.ix. Explore the possibility of using Libcal, the Library’s new scheduling software, to make appointments with CMET for migration? h.x. Information about the migration cannot over- communicated. We don’t want to under-communicate. h.xi. Best practice: h.xi.1. Tell students to upload their photos and not an avatar. h.xi.2. Tell students that they may NOT take, post, reuse in any way shape or form - a class member’s photo. This probably needs to be a policy and will be discussed at a future meeting. (See Issue 4 below).

7. Issues for discussion ISSUE 1 Discuss ability to pull in GTF’s as instructors for labs as well as include them as a co-instructor in the lecture portion of a course to ease course material sharing. . One example: Currently, the faculty member is the instructor of record for the lecture. The GTFs are the instructors of record for each of their respective labs. Proposal: do we add GTFs as GTFs in the lecture by default (with what permissions in Canvas? With what permissions to upload grades in Duckweb?) . The committee discussed and recognized that there are many different use cases that need further exploration and consideration before a decision can be made. Nina will connect with Sue and ask for use cases to review at the next meeting and for further discussion. . Issue tabled until further exploration of use cases discussed (next meeting). ISSUE 2 Discuss potential cases where pages, discussions, announcements, files conferences etc. would be used but not grades, assignments, quizzes, etc. Potential use: research groups, clubs, non-academic groups. . This is a policy and compliance question that we would like to address at the next meeting. See below. ISSUE 3 Can we allow non-UO people into a non-CRN / non-instructional Canvas sites? What are the issues / challenges to overcome and still be in compliance with FERPA and privacy policies, etc.? In what situations is this acceptable? What are the risks?

ISSUE 4 Policy: Student photos cannot be used by anyone else.

ISSUE Description Actions Taken # 1 Ability to pull in GTF’s as Deferred to next meeting. Nina instructors for labs as well as will solicit additional use cases include them as a co-instructor to bring to the next meeting for in the lecture portion of a course continued discussion. to ease course material sharing. 2 Discuss potential cases where Will address at next meeting. pages, discussions, announcements, files conferences etc. would be used but not grades, assignments, quizzes, etc. Potential use: research groups, clubs, non- academic groups.

3 Can we allow non-UO people Identified as new topic of into a non-CRN / non- discussion. Will discuss at next instructional Canvas sites? What meeting. are the issues / challenges to overcome and still be in compliance with FERPA and privacy policies, etc.? In what situations is this acceptable? What are the risks? 4 Student photos Identified as new topic of discussion. Will discuss at next meeting.