by Dr. Pelham Mead

Title V Activity I Narrative

In moving toward the goals 1, 2 and 3 of Activity I , the Technology Steering Committee met several times and set up guidelines for the faculty selection of Professors to enroll in the 45 hour Teacher Learner Center course in the fall of 2001 and also in the spring of 2002. Plans were made for advertising for the position of the Director of the Teacher Learner Center and an Assistant Director and Administrative Assistant. Resumes were received ,and after several interviews a Director of the Teacher Learner Center was hired on May 1, 2001.
The Director, Dr. Pel Mead was introduced to the faculty council and he gave a short talk as to some of his expectations and past experiences in a similar grant position at New York University. Room 412 in the Administration building was chosen as the Teacher Learner Center. It was an ideal choice since it was previously a computer lab for faculty and was already completely wired and it was in close proximity to the technology staff. A teaching assistant to the Director was soon afterward hired who would be able to assist with the 45 hr. course and individual tutoring of the faculty.
The next stage in moving toward the activity I goals was the release of the list by the faculty council of the Professors selected to take the fall and spring courses. An e-mail vote was made by all full time and adjunct professors as to what five class rooms that wanted to become “smart classrooms.” After this list was received the rooms were inspected and a list of renovations necessary was made and presented to the college business manager. Each smart classroom was to be carpeted, painted, shades purchased and lighting improved, as well as electronic screens if none existed.
The Director of the teacher learner center evaluated the budget proposed in the Grant and determined that the Technology Steering Committee needed to meet to discuss some shortcomings of the budget. It was determined that inflation of prices and accidental omissions of some critical equipment items grossly inflated the total value of the proposed budget. The Technology Steering Committee voted to provide one computer monitor projector in each classroom rather that have 8 professors share one projector as originally proposed in the budget. In addition they decided to permanently install the projectors mounted on the ceiling to prevent accidental damage and or theft. Printers were omitted from the list of equipment and were deemed essential to professors being able to print out notes or material from the Internet for students. The entire “smart classrooms” budget was re-evaluated and the cost per class rose from $5,000 per classroom to $1350. The President of the College felt it was necessary to do the “smart classrooms” properly and make sure the right equipment was placed in each classroom to facilitate the successful completion of our Activity I Goals in the title V Grant. One class in particular was especially challenging since it was an old science lecture hall that housed 128 students in stadium seating. The ceiling height of 20 feet required that a piece of equipment called a dyna-lift be purchased to raise and lower the monitor projector. The 20 foot long, 30 year old electronic screen in the science hall would have to be removed since it was damaged and a much smaller electronic screen would have to be purchased and installed. This room was used not only by Biology staff, but by other classes in the college that needed a large lecture hall. Plans for renovation of all the “smart classrooms” are to be ready by August 1, 2001 and all computer related equipment purchased and installed before that date.

Leave a Reply