Santa Barbara City College
Committee on Teaching and Learning
Minutes of April 28, 2003
Present:
M. Eckford-Pressor (Eng.), M. Ferrer (FRC), P. Guenther (Math), D. Kiley (Library),
G. Lewin (Chair), B. Moore (Math), C. Solberg (Soc. Sci.), S. Starkey (Eng.),
N. Warner (Fine Arts)
Excused: J. Anderson (Health Tech.), S. Brewer (Acad. Sup.),
M. El-Soussi (Tech.), G. Federman (Bus.), M. Hodges (PE/Ath.), T. Mahoney (Liaison),
P. Chavez-Nunez (FL/ESL), J. Pike (LSS), J. Ullom (Ad. Liaison), E. Wise (Sci.)
Guests: Val Del Vecchio (Library), Michael Gallegos (Administrative
Dean)
The meeting was brought to order at 3:00 p.m. Our guests were introduced.
Val
Del Vecchio and Michael Gallegos on “Computers in the Library”
Val summarized the issue of computer use in the library for the members of the
committee by referring to a list of issues and potential solutions developed
by M’Liss Garza, Richard Hoffman and himself in a meeting (4/14/03). The
Pipeline Project has ended after being tested in the library, and its use brought
out the following issues:
1. Keyboarding noise – the noise of the keyboards is distracting to students
who wish to have quiet time to study.
2. Adequate staffing – there is a perceived lack of technical and tutorial
staff to support the lab.
3. Word processing as a function of the library – should word processing
be allowed in the library? This is a philosophical issue about what the faculty
and college at large want the function of the library to be. Should it be a
traditional library, a computer lab, or an information center?
4. Location of lab - the lab is currently in back of the library out of the
line of sight of the reference desk, the tutors, etc.
5. Name of lab – by calling it “Pipeline Lab”, it connotes
a function not integrated with the library or how it is intended to function.
6. Lack of uniform software packages – there are different software packages
on computers in different areas of the library. This makes it difficult to use
all of the machines when there is an overflow situation in certain areas.
Potential solutions to these problems suggested by the three librarians include
the following:
1. Keyboarding noise – put a set of partitions (including shelves) around
all the computers in one place in the library to deaden the noise. Install quieter
keyboards or laptops.
2. Adequate staffing – provide tutorial and technical support for computers
during all hours the library is open. Develop new methods to more efficiently
share technical staff and tutors with the LRC.
3. Word processing – meet with CTL and other academic committees, as necessary,
to consult with faculty and the college community to provide guidance about
what the function of the library should be.
4. Location of lab – consolidate all computers in the library into one
central location. This would allow for more efficient use of staffing and support.
This would also assist in keeping the keyboarding noise localized.
5. Name of lab – all the computers in the library should not have separate
names or functions.
6. Lack of uniform software packages – all the computers in the library
should have the same load sets and students should be able to access all library
resources from whatever machine is available.
Discussion:
The consensus is to keep the computers in the library, and consolidate them
so there are 15 in a new location set apart from the quiet study areas by relocation
of shelves. This area is closest to the Circulation Desk and the Librarians’
offices. This also increases quiet places for studying since the card catalogs
will be consolidated into one location.
Question to Faculty: What do you want the library to be used for? Val
requested faculty’s help in defining what computer use should mean operationally.
The new term being suggested to define computer use in the Library is “Information Processing”: search the internet, use Pipeline, and use notepad in Word, or Word as a supplement to the research (e.g., to do citations but not to do word processing required for composing an essay).
The issue of tutors to monitor designated use of computers (i.e., no personal email) and assist with simple procedures is one that may involve budget and availability constraints. David Kiley does not want to be a computer tutor and wants to make sure the budget is in place before approving a plan. He noted too often a plan has been put in place, only to lose its funding in the future. David Kiley expressed that word processing should not be a part of the Library’s functions.
Another difficulty has to do with solving the noise from the air conditioning unit. Michael Gallegos said that all this is predicated upon solving the air conditioning unit and keyboard noise problems. He added two aspects to be considered. Once Oracle is up, should students be able to register for classes online in the Library? The second factor is students seem to want PCs to work on and the LRC is Mac, so they might prefer to use the Library, which has PCs.
Other labs on campus are not considered computer commons for general use as they are dedicated to a particular purpose and allowing general use would inhibit their efficacy in fulfilling their purposes.
Curt Solberg stated that we have a moral obligation to provide a place for students to use computers as not everyone has one at home nor does everyone with a computer have internet access. Sandy Starkey agreed, and noted that the LRC is the computer commons everyone uses now, and that she has observed times when it is not filled; however, her suggestion is to allow overflow to the Library only during those times when the LRC is totally filled.
Mark Ferrer said that other colleges integrate computers into their libraries. Val agreed based upon what the librarians observed while visiting other colleges, but the difference is that they isolate their computer labs from the regular stacks. Our design is such that we cannot do that. Mark noted that one of the important issues to consider is how space is being used, and Curt added that the noise factor should not be compromised due to a space problem.
Michael Gallegos summarized the issue by saying that the plan being proposed is based upon the idea of “information processing” as being the most appropriate use of computers.
ACTION: Representatives will speak with their constituents and ask them what they want the library to be used for, given this set of options and considerations. Will discuss it in our next meeting.
Break – The members of CTL presented their best wishes and a gift certificate to Pam Guenther, who will be adding to the number of human beings on the planet as soon as next month!
Nina
Warner on "Critiquing Student Work"
Nina showed the committee members how critique works in the Art Dept. She handed
out a set of guidelines (see Teaching Tip #34 in the Teaching Tips Archives,
located at http://frc.sbcc.net/lasso/tlc/search.html). We discussed the nature
of critique, how it differs from criticism that can be negative. The members
of the committee discussed use of juried evaluations in art, architecture, and
composition, and the fact that students must become familiar with critique if
they are going to be graduate students. It is part of the reality of professionals
in the field.
The student stands by his or her own work, and takes ideas, and comments and questions from others. They focus upon the basic problem the class has been dealing with, and they learn how to apply criteria to the following: value (light/dark), texture, composition, and materials (among others).
Individuals shared their experiences of critique in multimedia and photography (M. Gallegos and V. DelVecchio), and composition (S. Starkey and M. Eckford-Prossor). Melanie asked if people were overly nice at the beginning of the class, and Sandy offered one way to get into it is to bring a former student’s essay, and critique it as a group, thus role modeling how it should be done.
We practiced holding up charcoal drawings of shells that Nina had provided, and some of us asked questions as if we were students. Nina showed us how to deal with such difficult situations as brutal comments and silly scribbles that students put on their otherwise professional pieces of work. Nina set everyone at ease with her fluid style, and her intelligent and caring guidance.
Final
Meeting:
Monday, May 12th, 3:00 pm - Mark Ferrer and George Federman on "Student-Centered
or Subject-Centered Learning."