University of Minnesota
Institute of Technology
Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,
May 6, 2004
3:35 p.m., 133 Physics
Present: John Baxter (Math), Bryan Carlson (ADCS), Thomas Chase (ME), Tracy DeLaney (Astro), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Kent Kirkby (Geol), Jerry Larson (ADCS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), James Maatman (ITSB), Jim MacDonald (CSci/IT Labs), Kent Mann (Chem), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Justin Revenaugh (Geol), Jonathan Rogness (Math), Roger Rusack (Phys), Hitoshi Sakamoto (ME), Evan Skillman (Astro), Karen Swanberg (Geol), Lucas Veverka (ITSB)
1) Lab management proposals from CSci and ADCS
Hudleston repeated what had been said at the last meeting: that the proposals represent continuation of management of the public labs in the same manner as in recent years. The level of effort in the proposal from Computer Science and Engineering is as before. That in the ADCS proposal has been reduced due to significant reduction in hours of lab consultants following installation of security cameras.
There was no further discussion of the proposals. Hudleston said he would bring the management proposals to email vote ITICC in the near future.
2) Lower Division computing - collective "maintenance" proposal
Hudleston provided some background data concerning Lower Division funding (see attachment #1). He also provided data on enrollments for the 2003-04 academic year (see attachment #2) in the lower division courses supported by ITICC-funds in the four departments seeking renewal funding for maintenance of existing instructional facilities.
On the sheet listing funding for 2001-04 and requested for 2004-2007 (attachment #1) Hudleston has included the percentage of total funding either provided (2001-04) or requested (2004-07) that is devoted to effort. He noted that in all cases – with two exceptions – effort shown on this sheet is devoted to software development and implementation. The two exceptions are in the Physics part of the "maintenance" proposal for 2004-07, in which about 15% of the request is for system maintenance, and in the Chemistry "new initiative" proposal, which is entirely for lab management. Hudleston said these differences reflected the differences in understanding about what is allowable under the revised guidelines.
Lengthy discussion followed on the issue of support using ITICC funds for general maintenance and support of lab facilities in the departments. There was general acceptance that additional effort was needed to maintain these facilities, and that at least in part, this could be from ITICC funds, since these facilities would not exist without these funds. MacDonald reminded the committee that, when the lower division fee was established in 1998, there had been discussion about Upper Division IT Lab management taking over responsibility for the departmental lower division instructional computing facilities. It became clear, however, that maintenance for the specialized nature of computing tied to individual introductory courses and disciplines would best be done by the departments.
Hudleston said that his concern was that, without clear guidelines, an increasingly large fraction of lower division funding would be diverted to management and maintenance, given the budgetary pressures in the departments. It is his intention that ITICC develop clear guidelines in the fall. His opinion was that the best way to do this would be by allowing a fraction of the budget, up to some appropriate maximum percentage of the total, to be used for this purpose. In the meantime, he believed that departments could maintain current facilities with the level of funding requested in the collective maintenance proposal. He reasserted that, in general, maintenance of existing facilities should not be more expensive than establishing the facilities in the first place. This was what had led him to ask the Baxter subcommittee to keep the cost of maintenance to about $400,000 per year (the previous 3-year period had provided funding at $450,000 per year). He said that he would be willing to allow Chemistry, where the problem of maintenance appeared to be most acute, to shift items within its portion of the collective maintenance budget, if approved, to allow for some management support.
Hudleston said he would conduct an email vote concerning the 3-year collective maintenance proposal. He stressed that importance of approving funding to allow the Lower Division facilities in the departments to be sustained.
3) Lower Division computing – "new initiatives"
Hudleston reminded the committee that at the previous meeting the decision had been made to proceed on the basis of funding for one year only for new initiatives because of the contentious issue of allowable effort involved in general lab maintenance. He then noted that requests for the first year exceeded available funds by about 50%. This means that up to two of the three proposals can be funded. Hudleston said he wanted to stick as closely as possible to what had been established in the revised guidelines, so he was reluctant to consider any alternatives to voting on the three proposals individually.
To guide the committee members in their review of the proposals, Hudleston provided a set of criteria (see below Attachment #3). He said that for the most part these are simply restating and expanding somewhat on what is already in the approved guidelines. He emphasized that, since funding levels are not likely to increase, it is important to spell out the maintenance implications of any new initiatives. In the long term, if additional maintenance is required it will have to come at the expense of something else currently supported.
Rusack demonstrated with the aid of computer animations the Physics proposal for further development and implementation of simulator programs for introductory physics labs. He emphasized the benefits of being able to vary in the simulations parameters, such as gravity, that are fixed in the physical experiments.
Kirkby used examples to show how Geology's proposal would help students visualize topography on maps. Funding is being requested to purchase a printer capable of creating anaglyph maps using UV-resistant ink, as well as for programming and a visualization specialist.
Chemistry is requesting funds for 75% of the salary of the manager of its Computer Aided Instruction facility built up over the past six years. Mann expressed unhappiness in the way the guidelines were being interpreted - Chemistry's approach being fundamentally different.
After some discussion, it was agreed that the voting would involve approval or non-approval for each proposal, and then a ranking of the three proposals. This will reduce the likelihood of a tie.
Hudleston said he would proceed with the voting by email.
*************
Attachment #1 - Box indicates collective proposal
ITICC Lower
Division Collective Proposal - Approved 2001-2004
Astronomy Chemistry Geology Physics Total
$88,000 $592,500 $73,000 $598,800 $1,352,300
Effort 52% 12.5% 47% 24%
ITICC Lower
Division Collective "Maintenance" Proposal - Requested 2004-2007
Astronomy Chemistry Geology Physics Total
Maint $40,000
$539,792 $128,770 $508,098 $1,216,660
Effort 100% 16% 29%
39%
ITICC Lower
Division "New Initiative" Proposals - Requested 2004-2007
Astronomy Chemistry Geology Physics Total
New $142,624 $64,482 $176,522 $383,628
Effort 100% 63% 98%
New 1 yr $46,143 $37,494 $58,445 $142,082
*************
Attachment #2
|
|
Fall 03 |
Spring 04 |
03-04 Ac Yr |
03-04 Ac Yr |
|||
|
|
All |
IT |
All |
IT |
All |
IT |
PerCent IT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ast
1001 |
581 |
11 |
502 |
23 |
1083 |
34 |
3.1% |
|
Ast
1011 |
20 |
3 |
22 |
2 |
42 |
5 |
11.9% |
|
Tot |
601 |
14 |
524 |
25 |
1125 |
39 |
3.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chem
1021 |
1074 |
263 |
919 |
261 |
1993 |
524 |
26.3% |
|
Chem
1022 |
567 |
113 |
798 |
202 |
1365 |
315 |
23.1% |
|
Chem
1031 |
73 |
60 |
|
|
73 |
60 |
82.2% |
|
Chem
1032 |
|
|
57 |
36 |
57 |
36 |
63.2% |
|
Chem
2301 |
884 |
198 |
487 |
73 |
1371 |
271 |
19.8% |
|
Chem
2302 |
337 |
52 |
614 |
125 |
951 |
177 |
18.6% |
|
Chem
2311 |
271 |
73 |
415 |
54 |
686 |
127 |
18.5% |
|
Tot |
3206 |
759 |
3290 |
751 |
6496 |
1510 |
23.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geo
1001 |
564 |
54 |
515 |
44 |
1079 |
98 |
9.1% |
|
Geo
1005 |
|
|
150 |
4 |
150 |
4 |
2.7% |
|
Geo
1006 |
225 |
4 |
|
|
225 |
4 |
1.8% |
|
Geo
1101 |
33 |
7 |
31 |
6 |
64 |
13 |
20.3% |
|
Tot |
822 |
65 |
696 |
54 |
1518 |
119 |
7.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phys
1001 |
149 |
2 |
86 |
2 |
235 |
4 |
1.7% |
|
Phys
1101 |
334 |
5 |
231 |
4 |
565 |
9 |
1.6% |
|
Phys
1102 |
|
|
126 |
3 |
126 |
3 |
2.4% |
|
Phys
1201 |
377 |
2 |
183 |
1 |
560 |
3 |
0.5% |
|
Phys
1202 |
148 |
5 |
343 |
0 |
491 |
5 |
1.0% |
|
Phys
1301 |
897 |
649 |
227 |
104 |
1124 |
753 |
67.0% |
|
Phys
1302 |
287 |
198 |
758 |
577 |
1045 |
775 |
74.2% |
|
Phys
1401 |
90 |
80 |
|
|
90 |
80 |
88.9% |
|
Phys
1402 |
|
|
85 |
76 |
85 |
76 |
89.4% |
|
Phys
3071 |
59 |
0 |
58 |
0 |
117 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
Tot |
2341 |
941 |
2097 |
767 |
4438 |
1708 |
38.5% |
*************
Attachment #3
Criteria for Evaluating
Proposals for New Initiatives:
Must have educational merit
Added educational benefit – something new to the labs or lectures cannot be provided with existing facilities
Educationally innovative
Part of overall plan to improve instruction
Maintenance implications spelled out (in the long term we can’t add to the maintenance costs without subtracting elsewhere)
Number of students affected (emphasis on IT students)