Institute of Technology
Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,
April 21, 2005
3:35 p.m., Physics 133
Present: Graham Allen (Phys), Bill Arnold (CE), John Baxter (Math), Tom Chase (ME), Ahmed Habashy (ME), Ken Heller (Phys), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Michelle Jacobs (CEMS), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Kent Kirkby (Geol), Satish Kumar (CEMS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), Jim MacDonald (CSE, IT Labs), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Jonathan Rogness (Math), Martin Saar (Geol), Farzad Sadjadi (Phys)
1) Status reports from CSciE and ADCS
Nothing of note. LeMay reported that, unlike some years at this time, there have been no problems with overheating in the labs during the transition period from heating to cooling season.
2) Final Presentation of the Tech Committee’s Proposal for Public Lab Improvements for 2005-06
MacDonald briefly described the items on the proposed list of improvements for 2005-06. The list was identical to that presented at the March 24 meeting and posted on the web, with the addition of one small item. This is the cost of cleaning and servicing the four projectors in the lab/classrooms. This is a new service offered by Facilities Management, and it seems like good insurance. It will help ensure that projectors remain in good working order and reduce the probability of projector down time due to malfunctions, bulbs burning out, etc. The service includes replacing bulbs at regular intervals. The cost is $175 per projector per year. This item would be added to the list for base support in future years.
Hudleston reminded the committee of an additional item - the cost of which would be shared equally between Upper Division and Lower Division funding sources. This is a site license for the software (eRecuiting) used by IT Career Services. This item was also described at the March 24 meeting and reported in the minutes of that meeting. The cost to Upper Division is $7,500 a year; an equal amount would come from Lower Division funds.
3) Presentation of Lower Division New Initiative Proposals
Hudleston informed the committee that proposals had been received from four departments: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Geology and Geophysics, Mathematics and Physics. The proposals from each of these have been available for review on the web since early in the month. Hudleston asked representatives of each department to outline their proposals for the benefit of the committee.
Geology: Kirkby informed the committee that Geology’s proposal is to develop additional materials that allow students to visualize maps, rock specimens and digital environments in three dimensions. He said that the proposal this year is essentially what had originally been presented last year as the second part of a three-year proposal. The funds requested this year are for partial support of a visualization specialist/programmer. Hudleston noted that there has been significant interest at other institutions around the country in the initiative developed here in the Geology department.
Mathematics: Baxter described a proposal to improve the functionality of the Lind 24 computer classroom. It involves providing a larger whiteboard and modifying the wiring to allow the instructor to control the projector from his or her desk.
Physics: Heller described the proposal by Physics to develop simulations to assist learning physics in introductory classes. This is also the second year of what had originally been a three-year proposal. The proposal is for development of software that allows students to create 3D simulated versions of their experiments. It makes use of technology used in computer games. Students will be able to explore the effects of changing physical parameters and be able to test hypotheses. The proposal involves 50% effort of an individual through the year, with Teaching Assistant help during the academic year and in the summer.
Chemical Engineering & Materials Science: Kumar outlined a proposal to develop a secure web-based on-line advising application for Chemical Engineering and Materials Science. Students would start to use this when in Lower Division. It will have auto response and auto alert features to inform students of course availability and changes of time, and it will allow students to plan their course schedules and path to the degree. It will also allow for comments to be added by advisers and students themselves.
Hudleston said he thought this kind of tool was potentially most valuable and is the kind of approach he has encouraged. He informed the committee that Tom Shield in AEM has developed a rather similar tool, and he encouraged the folks in CEMS to talk to Shield. He thought other departments could benefit from this kind of practice, and he hoped adoption of this kind of tool would spread.
Hudleston said that an email ballot for both the Upper Division equipment proposals and Lower Division proposals would follow shortly.
4) Other Business
Hudleston said that the only thing remaining for the year is considering maintenance proposals for the public labs. This will be done at the final meeting of the year on May 6.
****************
Attachments: FY06 ITICC Summer proposal (see www.itlabs.umn.edu/iticc/budget.php)
Table
of requests for Lower Division New Initiative Funds (below)
New Initiative
Proposals for 2005-06
CEMS $10,440
Geology $10,910
Math $4,000
Physics $58,060
Career Services $7,500
Total $90,910