User Committee

The User Committee identifies faculty and student needs, required improvements in user experience, and recommended priorities for filling functional gaps. The committee also advises on communication with faculty and students and change management strategies.

Jump to a section: Current Members | Terms of Reference | 2017 Agendas | Outputs

Current Members

  • Joseph Anthony – Clinical Associate Professor, Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, and Health Professions Education Coordinator
  • Natasha Boskic – Senior Manager, Learning Design, Professional Development and Community Engagement, Faculty of Education
  • David Gill – Student (SLAIS) and Councillor (AMS and GSS)
  • Leanne Kearns – Associate Director, Academic Services, Undergraduate Office, Sauder School of Business
  • Suzie Lavallee (Chair) – Senior Instructor, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry
  • Kristen Morgan – Student, Physics and Mathematics, and Senator at Large (Okanagan campus)
  • Craig Nichol – Senior Instructor, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences
  • Claudio Pini – Director, Teaching and Learning Services, UBC IT
  • Tim Silk – Senior Instructor, Marketing and Behavioural Science Division, Sauder School of Business
  • Ray Taheri – Senior Instructor, School of Engineering, Faculty of Applied Science
  • Qian Wang – Senior Instructor, Department of Asian Studies, and Director, Chinese Language Program
  • Eugenia Yu – Senior Instructor, Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science (on leave Term 1, 2017)

Non-voting Attendee

  • Catherine Aldana – Executive Co-ordinator, The Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology

Terms of Reference


The User Committee makes recommendations on user experience improvements to the LT Hub Leadership group. The User Committee provides input to the LT Hub Leadership group on user issues related to the learning technology ecosystem, as well as receiving input/feedback from the LT Hub Leadership group.


  • Identifies gaps in learning ecosystem functionality, and makes recommendations for improvement, including setting priorities for filling functional gaps.
  • Makes recommendations and lead execution on LT tool / service use.
  • Provides communication and change management strategies.
  • Facilitation of peer-to-peer practice sharing.
  • Serves as channel for faculty / student communication and feedback.
  • Provides discipline specific context on issues related to teaching with technology.
  • Makes recommendations related to teaching faculty professional development needs.
  • Maintains communication within the Faculty on issues related to learning technology.


  • Guidance for the learning technology ecosystem that is discipline specific.
  • Includes University-wide systems, software, services and support that are regularly used for teaching and learning (including: classroom technology, mobile technology, media, and content repositories).
  • Scope includes current established (enterprise) and emerging (pilot) LT tools and applications.

2017 Agenda Items

March 2017:

  • LTE Renewal Project update
  • Learning Analytics Project

April 2017:

  • LTE Renew Project update
  • Learning Analytics Project

September 2017:

  • Learning Analytics Project update
  • LTE Renewal Project update
  • Transition to Canvas

October 2017:

  • Canvas transition updates, feedback, and best practices
  • LT Showcase call for proposals

November 2017:

  • coming soon

2016 Agenda Items

January 2016:

  • Overview of first key deliverables: summary paper and case studies on the current Learning Technology Ecosystem
  • Next Steps: determining Leads and teams to work on content areas, Functional map of Learning Ecosystem, and timeline

February 2016:

  • Presentations and workshop on key deliverable drafts: summary paper and case studies on the current Learning Technology Ecosystem

March 2016:

  • Review and finalize draft of summary paper on the current Learning Technology Ecosystem and Functional Map

April 2016:

  • Discussion of Learning Technology Ecosystem summary paper with Eric Eich, Vice-Provost and AVP Academic Affairs, and Chair of the LT Leadership Team
  • Presentation on One-Button Studio and Lightboard

May 2016:

  • Discussion about representing and engaging constituencies
  • Discussion about creating various versions of the functional map and focusing on assessment

September 2016:

  • Joint meeting with LT Innovation Committee regarding LTE Renewal Project update

October 2016:

  • LTE Renewal Project update
  • Presentation and discussion of revised Functional Maps
  • Presentation and discussion of assessment tools

November 2016:

  • LTE Renewal Project update
  • Discussion of draft use cases for LTE Renewal Project
  • Review of information collected in Faculties and mapping affordances to assessment tools


In the Spring for 2016, the User Committee surveyed current tools in use at UBC to support teaching and learning. The summary is available as a good snapshot of the LT ecosystem (PDF). A visual representation is also provided below. A variety of functional maps based on the survey results were refined over the course of 2016.


The diagram provides a view of learning technologies according to the pedagogical or learning functions that they support. The list is certainly not complete, but is drawn from various existing online resources, plus the tools used by the 13 faculty and student members of the User Committee.

There are four main areas of categorization, which may be thought of as the design elements of teaching and learning activities: (1) creation and provision of content to support learning; (2) interactions between individual or groups of learners and between learners and faculty; (3) various flavors of assessments (formative vs summative, synchronous vs asynchronous); and (4) tools for course management, administration, and evaluation functions. Some tools or applications appear in more than one category, reflecting multiple modalities for use.

In all categories, there exists a mixture of institutionally supported (or Faculty-supported) technologies, indicated by bold type, together with other unsupported or widely available tools (free and not). In any given category, the number of these “external” tools typically exceeds those provided and supported internally.