Summary from the iLevel Advisory Meeting, November 26, 2002
- 1) review ismart room in Architecture
- 2) Summer Institute plans
- 3) review survey as revised by Elaine
- 4) review and vote on iGrants
Committee members present: Elaine Bell, Tom Jeffrey, George Libbey, Marcel O'Gorman, Dan Shoemaker, Emmy Yousey.
1) Architecture iSmart Room.
Those present voted unanimously to accept the ismart proposal submitted by Dean Vogel for equipping the new exhibition space in the Architecture Bldg with advanced audio/video presentation capabilities. This grant is one of 4 ismart classrooms proposed in the original Title III Grant and amended by the ad-hoc iSmart committee.
2) Summer Institute.
Based on last meeting's report from Sarah Swart, plans for the Summer Institute are well underway, and it is understood that this is a collaborative effort between IDS and iLevel. ILevel will provide funds for up to 12 laptop computers for faculty involved in the three- or four-day institute. Sarah Swart has offered to report back to the iLevel committee once the library and IDS have discussed their vision of how to implement the Summer Institute. Their meeting on this issue is later this week.
All committee members agreed that the iLevel team should play a key role in defining the criteria for application, reviewing applications, and overseeing the disbursement of laptops. The committee agreed that the best strategy is to purchase a 2-year lease on the laptops, and allow the faculty members involved the option to purchase the machines at the end of two years.
The committee discussed some possible guest speakers to bring in over the course of the Summer Institute. Dan Shoemaker suggested that we bring in Mike Wendland, technology critic from the Free Press. We could ask him to lead a small-group discussion with faculty in the Institute, and give a keynote address as well.
Dan Shoemaker raised the issue that some faculty might not be interested in the institute if it teaches many skills that they already possess. Would it be possible to split the group into two and design one as a more content-focused, individualized, advanced institute? We could ask applicants to describe their training needs in their applications.
In any case, we must keep in mind the capacity of IDS staff to deliver the institute. Is there a possibility of bringing Local Heroes in to assist in training? Ilevel could likely provide stipends for this.
Elaine passed around copies of the current survey in progress. There was general agreement that the current version is too lengthy, and will likely turn faculty off. We don't want people to be overwhelmed with a great number of questions, some of which are lengthy. Our strategy might be to send out two surveys on color-coded paper--one general survey and one that better suits the needs of IDS. It would also be good to include informational material that explains the services of IDS, Academic computing, the library, etc. The goal is to implement the survey, both online and on paper, by the 3rd week in January.
Twenty-nine iGrant proposals were submitted. Seven grants were approved. Here are the numbers:
Approved: 7, 9 (if copyright disclaimer provided), 15, 16, 21, 22, 27-29 (one proposal resubmitted)
Grant 20 will be funded out of Title III supplies budget.
Several of these proposals requested laptops. In this case, we will invite the applicants to apply for the Summer Institute. In the case of the multi-proposal in the College of Health Professions, we will offer to pay for stipends/time release if they change the focus of their request.
We will advertise phase two of the iGrant process after the Thanksgiving break, and accept submissions until the end of the first week of classes (this is up for discussion--not proposed at meeting).