Summary from iLevel Advisory Committee Meeting - April 12, 2002
Apr 16 2002
-Everyone seemed to agree with the administrative structure that I proposed which was more than just an excuse to create a flowchart. I hope that everyone has a good idea of what's expected of them now, which will allow us to follow this communicative model and make it work for us.
-As far as "what have we done," there seemed to be a few surprises regarding the installation of wireless and blackboard in replacement of smart classrooms. This is an indication of the relative flexibility of the grant. As Heather mentioned, as long as we don't change the scope and intent of the grant, we have some room to play.
-This brings us to future plans. There are major concerns, as voiced by Emmy, regarding the move from Outer Dr. to McNichols. Outer Drive will still need computing facilities. The question is whether or not the grant is responsible for insuring facilities for the programs remaining on that campus. We spoke about the possibility of installing many ismart classrooms (wired rooms, no computers) rather than ismart plus classrooms (rooms with computers). The issue here, as raised by Emmy and Heather, is one of access.
Wired classrooms without computers don't help the students who don't own laptops. Furthermore, the students coming from Outer Drive will create a need for more computerized labs.
The consensus seems to be that we need a combination of ismart and ismart
plus classrooms. Moreover, these classrooms should all be installed on the McNichols Campus. Also, we should try to install computer labs that serve as both teaching classrooms and open labs. Dan brought up the issue of "turf," and noted that faculty and students will have to get used to holding classes outside of "their" specific building. Flexibility is the key, but we need an
intelligent plan before we start installing workstations. This plan will be generated by a sub-committee comprised of Emmy Yousey, Dina Dubuis, Marcel O'Gorman, Judy Miller and Gerry Opalinski. I have contacted Gerry and Judy via email to see if they will offer their time. I will contact this group separately about the first meeting.
Regarding the ismart classrooms, we also raised the issue of going wireless campus-wide (Tom Jeffrey's insanely smart idea). I will work with Tom next week on getting someone to do an assessment and give us a quote. Before then, I hope that Tom will speak to Bill Allmendinger about the information we may already have on this issue from a previous assessment. We will take into consideration issues of security, upgradeability, and traffic control.
Finally, the issue of a "laptop requirement" for incoming students was
raised. This is not an issue that the committee can handle on its own, but it should be kept afloat. We may not be the forum for discussing this sort of widespread change. Or are we the forum? This indicates the need for another computing committee that will take charge of lofty decisions such as laptop requirements and how to fully implement the Basic Skills exam (more on that later).
-As far as the Local Heroes, it seems everyone agrees that the first model did not work for a variety of reasons. We will disband the Local Heroes, and replace them by increasing communication between faculty support people at IDS, Academic Computing, and those scattered around the university such as Tony Drommi, Jim Stout, etc. We now must decide what to do about the faculty mini-grants. THere is $18,000 budgeted for these grants in Year 3.
-The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 3 at 1pm in the Fisher 5th floor conference room. At that time, we will provide updates about the ismart situation and the wireless solution. On the agenda will be the local heroes once again (and the mini-grant situation), and also the issue of Level I testing (basic skills exam--Emmy will direct this discussion) and Assessment/Evaluation, which is Elaine's area. I will also make some suggestions about how to achieve the remainder of the goals for Year 2,
which ends this October.