Institute of Technology
Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,
November 17, 2005
3:35 p.m., Physics 166
Present: Mark Anderson (Chem), Zain Asgar (ECE), John Baxter (Math), John Boggs (Geol), Thomas Chase (ME), Robert Edman (Math), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Michelle Jacobs (CEMS), Satish Kumar (CEMS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), Jim MacDonald (CSE, IT Labs), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Getiria Onsongo (CSciE), Roger Rusack (Phys), Tom Shield (AEM), Noobtsaa Vang (ME), Lucas Veverka (ITSB)
1) Status reports from CSciE and ADCS
There were no reports of problems in lab operations from lab management. Also, no comments from student users.
2) Lab Improvements Fall Round – Final Presentation
MacDonald handed out the revised list of proposed purchases for lab improvements this fall. The list is basically as presented at the previous meeting, with a few minor changes. In answer to a question about the scanners, MacDonald said that no particular model had been chosen, but the model selected will likely be an Epson.
The last item on the list is maintenance for six computers purchased last spring; this had been inadvertently omitted from the spring proposal. MacDonald reiterated that other purchases of computers would wait until after the review committee has presented its report.
Hudleston said that he would conduct an email ballot on the proposal in the usual way.
3) Review Committee Status report
Rusack gave a brief description of the state of deliberations of the review committee and a list of the areas under discussion. He said that one of the issues, the question as to whether or not we should provide students with a certain number of free printed pages per semester was easily decided on – yes. This might be 500-1000 pages per semester.
The other issue about which Hudleston had asked for an early resolution is whether or not all the current lab space is needed, in light of reduced lab occupancy over the last couple of years. The committee felt that no recommendation on this should be made until the current instructional computing needs have been fully reviewed, on the principle that it would be unwise to give up space if it were later deemed necessary. Hudleston repeated his earlier statement that the dean was under pressure to fully utilize space in IT buildings and that, ultimately, the decision as to whether or not ITICC should relinquish control of some its space will be up to the dean, not ITICC.
Rusack described the tasks that various member of the committee had been assigned. Konstan has the task of analyzing the data on lab usage over time by machine type and by different groups of students. Veverka is preparing a survey on computer usage and ownership to be sent out to students. Edman is looking at how other universities handle instructional computing. MacDonald made a comment that it was difficult to compare directly the way computer systems were managed in different universities because in many cases the Information Technology staff run network infrastructure for the college and are not just working with student computing. We have a unique system here. MacDonald said that he meets periodically with people in the other Big 10 schools with similar responsibilities, and he appreciates the difficulties of comparing computer support systems.
Another task is to get information from the departments about how they handle instructional computing within the department. The faculty representatives of ITICC will be asked to do provide this information.
A survey is being planned to find out how students use computers in their academic work, both in the public labs and using their own equipment. Shield noted that the topic of computer literacy had come up in the recent ASSA (Academic Standards and Student Affairs) committee meeting. He suggested that adding questions to the survey soliciting information about computer skills students have on entering IT would be useful in determining the level of “technological literacy” our students have. This bears on a question raised in the provost’s office, “Should the university develop a tech literacy standard?” This was discussed in ASSA, but there is an absence of data at present to know whether this is an issue for the college to address.
Hudleston mentioned that he had conducted a survey on computer use by students in IT about 5 years ago and would provide the questions and results of that survey to the committee. It would be interesting to see how ownership and computer usage had changed in the intervening years. He also said that he and Shield should provide the committee with some questions for the survey that addressed the issue of computer literacy.
On the part of the committee Rusack said that they would be sending out a draft of the survey shortly for review and that he would soon be contacting departments for input on computer use in instruction in the departments.
4) Other Business
None