Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Agenda Items

I. T&L Repository Branding/Naming

1. Follow-up (Nate)

  • Must rebrand the library.
  • Link from the home page of our group.
  • People are invited to jump in.
  • Doesn't have to be sexy.
  • Must include stuff outside Sakai.
  • OSP, User Doc, T&L have to be consulted.
  • Marist grad student is hired.

II. Award

1. Name of the Award (Matt)

  • 1) The __ Teaching with Sakai Innovation Award _or 2) The Teaching with Sakai Innovation Award, sponsored by ____
    • until all sponsors are set, let's start with the second idea.
  • Do we need to narrow it down? Yes.
  • Levels: have other sponsors give away lesser prizes.
  • Some sponsors might not like being in the shadow of IBM.
  • Must follow-up on SG.

2. Steps and deadlines (Janet) - NOT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL DURiNG THE CALL

Step

Begin Date

End Date

Who's in Charge?

Progress

Comments

Rubrics

 

Next week.

 

80%

Maggie made the first draft. Almost done now.

Application Process

 

 

 

 

 

Promotion

 

 

 

 

Get IBM to set up a promotional page.

Judge Selection

 

 

 

 

Down to 6 judges. Who should be contacted?

Short List

 

 

 

 

 

Judging

 

 

 

 

 

Heads-up to the Winner

 

 

 

 

 

Announcement

July 1, 2008.

July 3, 2008

 

 

At the Paris Conference.

3. Rubrics (Janet, Maggie, Matt)

Maggie, Janet, Matt and Salwa (and others likely) have created a DRAFT Rubric for us to review today. (version with revisions)

  • 7 principles: citation + graduate too.
  • Provide a link to the 7 principles.
  • Course look and feel. Accessibility has been taken out.
  • Put accessibility in the Excelent.
  • Learner support. Add "if needed" to on the fly support.
  • Link to a glossary. Start in Confluence. Post it on a web site afterwards (post to OSP Library).
  • Use the conference page?
  • Post to the mailing list.
  • Maggie will be in charge of working on the rubric. Work needed in the visual design.
  • Start with the Innovative column. Find a way to weight it.
  • Innovation is difficult to assess. Innovation is difficult to assess.
  • Add a Not Effective. need Add a Not Effective (need some work). Leave the innovation out of the rubric. Complete the spectrum.
  • Needs Improvement.
  • Scoring would be the filter.

4. Follow-up on the Judges (Josh)

  • Positive feedback from the board.
  • No concern from the board on our short list.
  • Two other suggestions. Josh will try to get in touch with John.
  • Two from Europe from Michael.
  • How many judges?
  • Sample letter (Matt and Josh).

5. Application process (Eddie, Josh, Nate)

  • Conference proposal OR Drupal.
  • CP not Open source. Must be customized.
  • Nate, Eddie and Josh will talk offline.
  • No labels