to a minimum the amount of
time students were required to
move back and forth between
the two platforms. By the
summer of 2016, 89 percent of
courses used Canvas.

Sean
DeMonner,
ITS

executive director of teaching
and learning, was responsible
for the internal team tasked
with
implementing
the

system. He said the switch to
Canvas allows the University
to move forward on a more
efficient version of features
like
gradebook,
assignment

submission capabilities and a
discussion board. Two thousand
universities, school districts
and
institutions
worldwide

use Canvas, according to the
Canvas website. CTools was the
University’s own system.

“The ultimate goal is to take

the resources, the dollars, that
were going into the development
of those capabilities in CTools
and reinvest in next generation
academic
technologies,”

DeMonner said.

He added that the transition

is
also
the
University’s

response to new data analytic
possibilities.

“We’re starting to see new

things come into play like
learning analytics — this idea
that we can capture data from
various places, analyze it and
apply it to different kinds of
support activities for students,”
he said.

DeMonner
said
the

University hasn’t been able to
invest in these new support
mechanisms to drive students’
success at the level that they’d
like
because
they’ve
been

working with CTools.

Among faculty over the past

week, opinions on the switch
were
mixed,
with
several

expressing concerns. Initially,
some faculty had discussed
prolonging
the
transition

process for another year to
allow for a longer adjustment
period.

However,
the
Digital

Ecosystem Subcommittee of
the Digital Innovation Advisory
Group encouraged the provost
to expedite the process. The
faculty subcommittee no longer
exists.

School of Public Health Prof.

David
Mendez,
the
former

chair of the subcommittee, said
it was important for students to
not have to go back and forth
between the platforms.

“What we recommended was

a transition that could happen
as fast as possible, but without
rushing students or faculty,” he
said.

Senate
Assembly
Chair

Bill Schultz, an engineering
professor, said though some
faculty and students prefer the
system, he is still adjusting.

“I find it is not as intuitive as

I thought it would be,” Schultz
said. “I think this might be
better for students, and might
take some transition time for
faculty.”

American
Culture
Prof.

Lisa Nakamura started using
Canvas in winter of 2016. She
said she would like to be able
to make project sites through
Canvas, such as for smaller
reading groups within a class
or clubs, and be able to make
collaborative sites for students
to make study guides on their
own.

Overall, however, Nakamura

said she likes Canvas better
than CTools due to better
interface and quickness.

“There are some annoying

things about it, but I think
those were also true of CTools,”
she said.

Students
also
expressed

a range of opinions about
Canvas, but several said they
were happy just to not need to
switch back and forth between
platforms.

LSA sophomore Clare Shafer

said it was an inconvenience
using both sites when she
just wanted to double check
something for a class.

“I had one class on CTools

last semester and it was really
annoying
because
I
was

constantly having to log in and
then log back out,” she said. “I
just wanted to be able to quickly
access my classes and see if I
had homework.”

Shafer also said she preferred

Canvas because of its layout.

“I think how they have the

grade tab and the calendar tab
is more efficient than it was
on CTools,” she said. “Canvas
seems more modern.”

LSA junior Tad Conrado

had a similar perspective. He
said he preferred the style on
Canvas and liked having to only
access one platform.

LSA senior Evan David said

he preferred CTools because
it had a more obvious user
interface, but is fine using
Canvas.

“Personally, I liked CTools

better in general,” he said.
“I
thought
it
was
more

streamlined and I thought the
user interface was easier.”

In spite of the big adjustment,

DeMonner said the support
that Canvas has received has
been very important for its
integration at the University.

“A change like this, even

though it has happened over a
period of two years, is hugely
impactful
for
campus,”
he

said. “It touches pretty much
every student, all the faculty,
with very few exceptions. We
have received a lot of support
in partnership from different
constituencies around campus.
I appreciate that, and I thank
folks for going with us on the
journey.”

3-News

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, September 7, 2016 — 3A

student ratio. Some categories
impacted the rankings more
than others, with academics
being most influential quality.

The University has improved

its ranking on this list from

the 2015-2016 year in which
it placed 30th. This year, it is
the only public university to
rank in the top 25. In the past
five years, the University has
ranked in the top 25 four times.

The
University
has
also

steadily improved in national
and international rankings lists
from other publications. In July

2016, the University jumped 16
spots in Money Magazine’s list
of best value universities to the
number two spot. However, the
University’s standing has fallen
slightly in U.S. News rankings
in the past few years. Currently
it ranks the University at 29th,
but was ranked 26th in 2009
and 24th in 2006.

RANKINGS
From Page 1A

off-campus
student
housing

building near South University
— is $1,200 per person per
month for a four-bedroom. Rent
is $2,100 per month for a two-
bedroom at University Towers,
which is also located in the
area.

Chang
Yang,
an
LSA

sophomore, said she supports
the
expansion
of
students’

living options, but emphasized
the
inaccessibility
of
safe,

affordable housing for students
close to campus. She added
that she worries students are
expected to sacrifice safety,
security and convenience when
searching for apartments.

“More student housing in

this area is good, especially
because most concerns about
housing
involve
safety,”

Yang said. “It’s good that the

apartments will be so close to
the Diag and Central Campus,
but, on the other hand, places
in these areas charge a lot for
housing. This is frustrating
because it implies that safety
comes only with wealth.”

LSA
sophomore
Tara

Jayaram
echoed
Yang’s

sentiment.

“It depends on the price,”

she said. “If it’s affordable off-
campus housing, then I’d be
really happy about it. But if it’s
something like Zaragon Place,
I just feel like it wouldn’t be
worth living there.”

However
LSA
sophomore

Jessica
Bleiweis,
a
current

Landmark resident, said she
believes the cost of rent at
high-rises like hers reflects
the quality and convenience of
her experience. She added that
she appreciates the amenities
provided by the complex, which
offer her a more comfortable
living arrangement than that in

dorms.

“I feel like (the new building)

would be a really good idea,”
Bleiweis said. “I know that there
are people who are struggling
with finding housing, and, if it’s
as nice as Landmark, I’m sure
they’ll get a bunch of people
who want to live there.”

Ron Hughes, a developer at

Hughes Properties, declined
to
comment
about
future

development plans and the
completion date when contacted
by The Michigan Daily Tuesday.
However, to move forward, the
project will first need to be
reviewed by the city’s Design
Review Board and the city’s
Planning
Commission,
and

then approved by City Council,
a process which usually takes at
least several months. Specific
dates for design review board or
planning commission meetings
that would include a review of
the project were not available
Tuesday.

APARTMENTS
From Page 1A

a focus for the body’s future
goals. These directives include
an increase of student input on
University
decision-making,

fostering a more inclusive campus
environment,
an
expanding

student
access
to
resources,

conducting
more
sustained

CSG
outreach,
enhancing

student
opportunities
and

promoting greater collaboration
among students and student
organizations.

As
well,
the
body
will

commission
a
demographic

report
of
the
organization

for the first time to be more
transparent about the diversity
on the assembly. A Michigan

Daily
report
conducted
last

March
found
a
trend
in

hegemonic practices after the
presidential slot was filled by a
man for the seventh consecutive
year. In a comparison of CSG
presidential and vice presidential
representation to the student
population,
disparities
were

discovered across the board in
almost all categories but white
students.

“We are all really committed

to
ensuring
that
CSG
is

more
inclusive,
diverse
and

representative in the year ahead,”
Schafer said. “I think it’s not only
going to hold us more accountable
as an organization to improve our
diversity in the long term, but it’s
also going to allow us to possibly
set objectives and measures going
forward and benchmarks that we

can apply for our future now and
in the long term.”

After the data is collected,

Schafer said a report about the
findings will be published.

In
accordance
with
the

directives,
Schafer
also

discussed the launch of an
executive order calling for an
internal improvement taskforce
within the body to improve its
demographics and address their
diversity as an organization,
such as looking into methods of
guaranteeing first-year student
representation on the body. The
taskforce would be staffed by the
newly elected Student General
Counsel as well as the Chief
Justice and Student Judiciary,
a member of the CSG Rules
Committee and another member
of the body.

CANVAS
From Page 1A

CSG
From Page 1A

As council discussed the

issue for the final time, City
Councilmembers
Jack
Eaton

(D–Ward 4), Jane Lumm (I–
Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy
(D–Ward 1) — who typically
dissent against the approval of
large construction projects —
all made clear they would vote
in opposition to approving the
Woodbury project.

Eaton
argued
the

fundamental
environmental

and
infrastructural
issues

surrounding the project have
not been adequately addressed
in
explaining
his
vote
in

opposition.

“We
can
pretend
this

development
isn’t
going
to

impact traffic on the roads,”
Eaton said. “We can pretend
this project isn’t going to impact
flooding in the surrounding
areas, we can pretend this
project isn’t going to impact
nearby natural features. I don’t
believe we should rezone this
property and I don’t believe we
should approve the site plan.”

Eaton’s
sentiments
were

echoed by Lumm, who also
made clear she believes the
project would fundamentally
hurt surrounding residents and
the environment.

“In the city’s desire to add

density citywide, we allow these
projects to proceed without
their
own
infrastructure

support,” Lumm said. “Both
these projects will exacerbate
traffic
problems
in
already

problematic areas … our job is to
accept that reality.”

Kailasapathy
was
also

outspoken against approving
the project. She argued the
Woodbury apartment project is
emblematic of a broader issue

of City Council pushing for
development projects without
adequate concern for existing
residents.

“I like to face facts, I prefer

to live in reality … a couple of
weeks ago after rain we got
photographs from neighbors (of
flooding),” Kailasapathy said.
“This project is going to add 500
parking spaces — imagine the
runoff; there’s a big disconnect

between the projects we’re
approving and the people who
are living there.”

Despite the opposition, all

eight remaining members of
the council — including Mayor
Christopher Taylor — voted
in favor of rezoning the Nixon
Road land parcel to residential
and approving the Woodbury
construction plan.

City Councilmember Zachary

Ackerman (D–Ward 3) — who
voted in favor of the project
—
argued
the
development

is necessary to increase the
local housing supply to meet
growing demand. Ackerman’s
points were echoed by the other
council
members
voting
in

favor.

“This piece of land is fewer

than two miles from (North
Campus
Research
Complex)

and
Googleplex,”
Ackerman

said, referring to the site of the
proposed apartments. “We are
in need of more diverse housing
in more diverse locations.”

The ultimate goal is
to take the resources,

the dollars, that

were going into the
development of those
capabilities in CTools
and reinvest in next
generation academic

technologies.

COUNCIL
From Page 1A

I don’t believe

we should
rezone this

property and I
don’t believe we
should approve

the site plan.