University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

Minutes of ITICC Meeting

April 12, 2001

3:40 p.m., 435 Physics

John Baxter (Math), Pete Brandon (Phys), Tom Chase (ME), Tracey DeLaney (Astro), Tina Garrett (Math), Michael Greminger (ME), Andrew Hamann (ITSB), John Hickey (CSciE), Peter Hudleston (IT Stud Aff), Kent Kirkby (Geol - visitor), Satish Kumar (CEMS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), Chun-Tao Li (ECE), Jim MacDonald (CSE&ITLabs), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Kent Mann (Chem), Paul Morin (Geol - visitor), Larry Rudnick (Astro - visitor), Roger Rusack (Phys), Tom Shield (Aero), Evan Skillman (Astro), Karen Swanberg (Geol), Jerry Wang (ITSB)

1) Status reports from CSci and ADCS

Labs running smoothly

2) Tech Committee Proposals for Lab Improvements for 2001-02

MacDonald presented the initial proposal of the ITICC Technical Committee for improvements to the public labs for 2001-02. The main elements are replacing 29 Sun (EE/CS 4-204), 7 Linux (EE/CS 4-204), and 27 Windows machines (CE 230) that have reached their 4-year retirement age. The proposal is to replace these with Sun Blades (EE/CS 4-204) and Pentium dual processor machines (CE 230). Also, the proposal is to add 9 additional computers to CE 230 to make full use of space in the lab (this also requires additional tables, chairs, and wiring).

Shield asked if the labs had software that would take advantage of the dual processors. It seems that the answer currently is no. Does it then make sense to buy these? The extra cost is about $500 per machine. Macdonald noted that the philosophy of ITICC has always been to provide students with state-of-the-art machines, even though full use might not be made of the capabilities at first. He also said that he himself had argued against buying dual processor machines at an earlier time. He would happily substitute single for dual processors in the replacement order if that is what ITICC preferred. It was agreed that the Tech Committee would review the merits of dual processors, and that unless a need emerged it would recommend single rather than dual processors.

Additional proposals include:

Cameras for all labs, for security reasons, to allow monitoring of consultant presence, and to provide students with a remote visual check on lab usage and occupancy.

Installation of Windows 2000 Server on all client computers to assist in lab administration. The hope is that Microsoft will donate this software, but it is included in case this is not the case.

A few items are added to the list of annual automatically budgeted items, including books, Norton Utility software, alarm system maintenance, and a small-item contingency fund.

The total cost of the proposed improvements is about $335,000. This will allow a fall round of improvements of $400,000 or so.

Hudleston said that he would ask the Tech Committee to revise its proposal and he would then conduct a mail ballot of committee members. If there were large changes, he said he would bring it back to ITICC prior to the balloting.

3) Proposals for 3-year cycle Lower Division Instructional Computing

Proposals for lower division computing were presented by Geology/Astronomy, Chemistry and Physics. These proposals had earlier been placed on the web (at www.itlabs.umn.edu/iticc/).

Kirkby described the Geology/Astronomy proposal. The main element is the acquisition of stereographic visualization projection equipment for introductory classes. This is a state-of-the-art low-cost application, which is being developed in a collaborative project with the University of Illinois, and is likely to be adopted by many institutions across the country. The cost of such equipment is now about $15,000 per screen, down from about $100,000 a few years ago. It provides for the three-dimensional visualization of complex phenomena, a valuable aid in geology and astronomy courses. This technology will not only be used in introductory astronomy and geology classes, but will also be made available at non-lab times (about 50% of day class time) to other IT departments for use in classes in which 3-D visualization and manipulation of data is an important tool. Geology has received $29,500 in support from CLA toward the current proposal. It anticipates that CLA will continue to support this project. The three-year cost of the proposal is $253,753.

Mann outlined the Chemistry proposal. The department proposes to maintain and develop further the integration of computers – acquisition and analysis of data - into basic chemistry courses. Elements are replacement of existing computers on the regular 4-year cycle, development of software for additional laboratory experiments, and expansion of CAE into additional classes. Classes currently supported by use of ITICC funds are general chemistry Chem 1021, 1022, 1031, 1032. Additional classes for which computers will be installed and used in labs are organic chemistry (Chem 2301, 2302 and 2311). The three-year cost of the proposal is $623,800.

Rusack presented the Physics proposal, which is to maintain and develop further the use of computers in the introductory physics courses. During the past three years the department has been systematically transforming the labs from manual to computer-assisted data acquisition and analysis. It intends to replace the computers as they reach retirement age with high ends machines that will allow, with new simulation software, better video processing. Students will develop their own virtual experiments in real time, and be able to adjust parameters and perspectives and frame sequence for capturing the data. Physics will cost share on the experimental apparatus and video cameras. The three-year cost of the proposal is $655,336

There was considerable discussion on the issue of cost-sharing and the appropriateness of ITICC supporting these initiatives on funds largely provided by IT students, when the clientele in many of the classes includes mostly non-IT students. Non-IT students are a large majority for Astronomy and Geology, a significant majority in Chemistry, and about half the students in Physics. In Honors courses in both chemistry and physics they are all IT students. Hudleston emphasized that the purpose of initiating the lower division fee in the first place was to provide support for those introductory courses, such as the ones in basic science listed in the proposals, that were not supported by the original upper division IT computer fee. He said that ideally the computer fee should be applied university wide and the revenue shared on the basis of Student Credit Hours (in a manner analogous to tuition revenue). However, this is not the system we have. The argument he has used to support the way the fee is being used is that CLA students or students from other colleges, when they take introductory IT courses, benefit from course improvements and computer-aided instruction paid for by IT students, and that IT students, when they take courses outside IT, gain a similar benefit for improvements paid for by non-IT students. These benefits will not exactly balance, of course. Some committee members argued that there should be direct contributions from CLA students to the computer-aided instruction in introductory IT courses.

Hudleston said that the procedures to be followed called for an initial vote to be taken by ITICC members on each of the three proposals on its individual merits. The question is: Do you approve or not approve of what is proposed? A proposal must receive at least 51% of the votes from voting members of ITICC to be considered further. Hudleston said after the first ballot, and assuming proposals received sufficient positive votes, he would form a subcommittee to develop a composite proposal. He said if all three proposals were approved by ITICC he would ask the subcommittee to include all of them in the joint proposal. This would involve a reduction overall in budget of about 15%, which is the amount the three proposals exceed the anticipated funds available. ITICC would then be asked to vote a second time on the joint proposal. The votes in each case will be by e-mail ballot.

Details of the lower division proposals can be found on the ITICC website at: www.itlabs.umn.edu/iticc/