1 A Classroom Enhancement Initiative for South Dakota State University Approved January, 2014 Updated August, 2014 Updated August, 2015 Updated May, 2016 Task Force Members Aaron Aure, Angela Boersma, Lew Brown, Marvin Clark, Dean Kattelmann, Laurie Nichols, Scott Pedersen, Jennifer Quail, Kristi Tornquist, Kay Trooien, Lois Tschetter
53
Embed
A Classroom Enhancement Initiative for South Dakota State University
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Appendix F: Classroom Enhancement Initiative by Building ....................................................... 51
3
Executive Summary
Impact 2018’s first goal is to Promote academic excellence through quality programs, engaged learners and an innovative teaching and learning environment. Because classroom condition concerns were voiced repeatedly by faculty in the strategic planning development process, a task force was named to study our current university classrooms and develop a plan to be more innovative and improve the overall teaching and learning environment. To launch the process, Joe Bilotta of JBA Incorporated was contracted to complete a classroom analysis. Based upon 114,269 credit hours, Bilotta found that the university needs approximately 128,000 square feet of classrooms; the current inventory is 126,048. This analysis was based on 45 hours per week of classroom use; 70% usage (31.5 hours), and having an average occupancy of 67% (classrooms about 2/3 filled). Assuming credit hours remain constant, Bilotta concluded that the university has approximately the right amount of classroom square footage. Bilotta, however, found several shortcomings in SDSU’s classroom management practices, an overabundance of lecture classrooms, and a void of more interactive classroom formats. Bilotta’s report identified six major recommendations, four of which were pertinent to the classroom improvement plan:
1. Move to a centrally managed classroom scheduling system with first preference to current department. Move to centrally funded and maintained classroom system and allow departments and Colleges to focus on custom instructional lab/studio spaces.
2. Adopt SDSU policy and procedures for classroom use, management, and maintenance. 3. Develop a classroom improvement plan to address existing classrooms and the construction of
new classrooms. 4. Be extremely careful about developing large lecture based classrooms. If necessary, design them
in a way that they can be converted to other uses in the future. The task force used Bilotta’s classroom analysis and recommendations as a framework for this improvement plan. The inventory of 125 classrooms (69 university and 56 departmental) was merged and became the working university classroom inventory. Each classroom was visited by a taskforce team to evaluate the room on a series of quality indicators to arrive at a classroom “score”. Several classrooms were dropped from the inventory due to extremely poor scores which resulted from functional or structural issues that were cost prohibitive. In addition, department heads were allowed to request classrooms back if certain conditions applied. Upon review by the task force, several classrooms were returned to the department. When completed, the university classroom inventory yielded 99 classrooms to be scheduled by the Registrar’s office and maintained by the university. For certain classrooms, department or college preference for scheduling will be honored. A policy and procedures document for University Classrooms was developed, approved, and went into effect fall, 2013. This document governs the rules surrounding classrooms and the procedures by which the university will operate (schedule, maintain, improve) classrooms.
4
The task force researched innovative classroom typologies that could facilitate newer pedagogies of teaching and learning. Based on this research and Bilotta’s recommendation to “be extremely careful about developing lecture classrooms,” the taskforce arrived at 5 classroom prototypes for the plan: seminar, lecture fixed, lecture mobile, active learning/grouping and collaborative. To determine the appropriate mix of classroom types, department heads were consulted on preferred pedagogy for each active class in the graduate and undergraduate catalogs. The results included:
5% collaborative
9% seminar
18% active learning/grouping
20% lecture fixed
48% lecture mobile
This analysis confirmed Bilotta’s conclusion that SDSU has an overabundance of lecture classrooms and must develop a more diverse set of instructional classrooms by increasing seminar, active/group learning and collaborative classrooms. In addition to preferred pedagogy, an average cost for each classroom prototype was calculated to aid in development of a plan. The average cost per type is:
Combining these two data points, the task force developed a five-year plan for classroom improvement. When completed, it will result in the following classroom portfolio:
Seminar 9 Lecture Fixed 24 Lecture Mobile 56 Active Learning 5 Collaborative 4 High Tech Conference Seminar* 1
*Current location of Doner Auditorium
A detailed improvement plan is under development for the 99 classrooms with 19-20 classrooms improved each year beginning summer of 2014 and through 2018. With inflation, the plan will cost $10.2 million with approximately $4.3 million coming from existing resources and $5 million needed through private funds. The SDSU Foundation is committed to assisting with this project. A web site for classrooms is under development including the ability to scout and reserve rooms, or report a classroom problem.
5
Consultant Findings and Recommendations
As SDSU launched Impact 2018, improvements in teaching and learning environments were identified as a high strategic priority. To facilitate thoughtful movement toward this goal, the university engaged the services of JBA, Incorporated, an architectural and campus planning consulting firm. Joe Billota was hired to assist the university in understanding the current status of its classrooms and to make recommendations to improve the quantity and quality of university classrooms so as to better facilitate teaching and learning. Bilotta worked with the campus summer and fall 2012; major findings included: Existing Classroom Inventory
The campus has 125 classrooms totaling 118,602 Assignable Square Feet (ASF). There is an additional 7,446 ASF of classroom service space for a total of 126,048 ASF.
The Registrar’s Office manages 69 of these rooms. Individual departments and colleges managed the remaining 56 rooms. This is a relatively high percentage of departmentally managed spaces for a public institution.
Registrar managed rooms are typically larger lecture type spaces while the department rooms are smaller, more collaborative spaces. Many times the department spaces are also used for meetings or unscheduled gatherings.
Lecture rooms dominate the classroom inventory. Generally speaking, there is little diversity is SDSU’s classroom inventory. Over the past few years, the University has been making a concerted effort to address this.
Desired Classroom Types
The campus data suggests 88% of course are taught in didactic mode (lecture). It also indicates 80% of the University’s classrooms are designed specifically for lecture.
Input gathered from instructors throughout the process indicates today’s learning modalities are geared more towards interactive engagement with the students. If the campus were to rebuild classrooms today, it would only create approximately 1/3 of the spaces the lecture style format. A much higher percentage of group learning and interactive classroom spaces are necessary.
Departmental requirements show that lecture style classrooms should only account for approximately 38% of the rooms. This compares to today’s 80%. It also shows an increased need for group learning classrooms. Input suggests the need for approximately 30% of the classrooms supporting a group learning pedagogy as compared to the existing 10%.
Campus also indicated a need for more collaborative spaces. These spaces are designed specifically for engagement amongst the students in a variety of formats and environments. These do not yet exist on campus.
Classroom Needs
Classroom needs analysis is based on 114,269 credit hours. The analysis shows the need for approximately 128,000 ASF of classroom space. This is just slightly more than the current 126,048 ASF.
The analysis is based on a 45 hour week, using each classroom on the average of 70% of the time (31.5 hours), and having an average occupancy rate of 67% (2/3 filled).
Although the amount of space doesn’t seem to be a concern, the type of space is. A more diverse set of instructional classrooms is needed. The University needs to transform its classroom inventory, by reducing the high percentage of larger lecture spaces and increase its
6
group learning and collaborative classrooms. A focus is to increase the amount of medium-sized group learning and collaborative space over time. Facilities were built decades ago when lecture was the primary methodology for course delivery. This is no longer the case. Lecture spaces will be necessary for some time, but there is an overabundance of this type of space at South Dakota State University.
Bilotta’s full report can be found in Appendix A. The report provided six recommendations for the task force to address:
1. Move to a centrally managed classroom scheduling system with first preference to current department. Move to centrally funded and maintained classroom system and allow departments and Colleges to focus on custom instructional lab/studio spaces. a. A central system will improve the use of all shareable classrooms. Persons managing the
system have the tools and knowledge to align classroom types and pedagogies with instructor needs.
b. Pooling the classrooms together provides an increased and more diverse inventory of classrooms available to all programs.
c. A central budget needs to be established to support all classrooms in the central pool. These rooms must be maintained and equipped properly. This will improve long-term, lifecycle costs associated with classrooms. An appropriately funded central budget will also allow departments to apply their budgets toward instructional labs or other department spaces.
d. Many of the current departmental classrooms are smaller rooms and serve a dual function of classes and meeting space. Having the appropriate amount of departmental meeting/conference rooms will reduce the need for small department only controlled classrooms.
2. Adopt SDSU policy and procedures for classroom use, management, and maintenance. a. There should be a consistent classroom use policy. This includes not only operating
considerations, but planning considerations as well. b. This will maximize classroom utilization, improve quality, and reduce costs over time.
3. Develop a classroom improvement plan to address existing classrooms and the construction of
new classrooms. a. Determine which rooms are best suited for furniture and technology improvements to
repurpose into grouping and collaborative classrooms. b. Develop a curriculum driven flexible plan for any new classrooms.
4. Be extremely careful about developing large lecture based classrooms. If necessary, design
them in a way that they can be converted to other uses in the future. a. Any new lecture spaces should be designed with a flat floor or very large tiers. Technology
should be used to reach out to a larger audience when necessary. Flat floors will allow increased ability to adapt these spaces when necessary.
5. Understand the impacts of on-line and hybrid courses in lieu of didactic only delivery. a. The lecture pedagogy will be challenged and changed quickly regardless of the residential
population in any campus. Facilities must be able to adapt and meet this unknown rate of change.
6. Consider additional evening or “non-traditional” scheduled classes.
7
Expanding the Inventory of University-managed Classrooms
Recommendation 1
To implement the first recommendation, move to a centrally managed classroom scheduling system with first preference to current department, the task force developed a full inventory of the 125 classrooms. This included the 69 managed by the Registrar’s office and 56 additional classrooms managed by colleges/departments. The task force analyzed this inventory in two ways. First, department heads and deans were allowed to request that a classroom be removed from the university inventory if there were extenuating circumstances that might inhibit the use of the classroom for general teaching purposes. Examples included expensive computer or lab equipment, non-ADA compliant, environmental conditions not conducive to teaching/learning, etc. More than a dozen classrooms were removed based upon a reasonable rationale. A few classrooms were also removed from the list due to approved building renovations that would re-configure the space. Second, the task force developed an evaluation tool to assess and score each classroom on a series of quality indicators including: flooring, walls, window covering, ceiling, furniture (condition and type), cooling, whiteboard, lighting, sightlines, accessibility, circulation, acoustics, and technology. Results ranged from a score of 14 (indicating a high quality classroom) to a score of 44 (indicating a poorer quality classroom). The evaluation tool and resulting classroom scores can be found in Appendix B. Based upon evaluation scores, four classrooms with extremely poor scores were removed from the inventory. When both exercises were completed, a university classroom inventory of 99 classrooms remained. The second part of this recommendation was to move to centrally funded and maintained classroom system and allow departments and Colleges to focus on custom instructional lab/studio spaces. With the creation of the university classroom inventory, it was determined that all classrooms within the inventory would:
1. Be centrally scheduled by the Registrar’s office with preference given to designated departments based upon previous “ownership”. The existing preference list was shared with department heads and deans and corrections were provided to the Registrar.
2. Be funded for maintenance and improvements by a central source of funding. With this, a 5-year rotation for maintenance and improvements of all 99 classrooms was developed.
3. Allow departments and Colleges to fund and maintain laboratories, studios, and other discipline-specific instructional space.
These changes in university classroom management and scheduling were shared with the University Management Team during spring semester, 2013 and became effective fall semester, 2013.
8
Adopt SDSU Policy and Procedures for Classroom Use, Management, and Maintenance
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation was to develop university policy and procedures to address classroom use including scheduling procedures, management of university classrooms, and maintenance including technology repairs and upgrades. After reviewing a number of classroom policies from other universities, a sub-group drafted a policy and procedures for University Classrooms, Number 2:2 which can be found in the South Dakota State University on-line Policy and Procedure Manual at http://www.sdstate.edu/policies/. The policy was vetted with the full task force, and reviewed by legal counsel, the Provost and approved by the President. The policy went into effect fall 2013. The policy and its procedures set forth the on-campus University classroom inventory and utilization protocols to ensure fulfillment of the University commitment to providing quality learning environments for faculty and students consistent with changing pedagogy requirements. This policy excludes departmentally-controlled laboratories, class rooms, or other learning environments. A full policy can be found in Appendix C.
Develop a Classroom Improvement Plan to Address Existing Classrooms and the Construction of New Classrooms
Recommendation 3
Several steps were undertaken to develop this recommendation. The first step was to determine appropriate classroom prototypes, and secondly to determine the optimal number of classrooms within each prototype. The optimal number of classrooms is driven by preferred teaching pedagogy.
Determining Classroom Prototypes The task force conducted an environmental scan to determine futuristic and diversified classroom prototypes. They began by reviewing the prototypes offered by Bilotta in his presentation, but supplemented by reviewing literature on classrooms and exploring newly constructed classrooms at other universities. Ultimately, the task force arrived at the following prototypes:
Seminar (S):
These spaces are more/less formalized by the presence of conference type furniture that facilitates discussion and interaction. Typically these spaces would be used for upper level and graduate seminars. These spaces have basic technology support.
Example Rooms: Wecota 002 Wenona 004
Lecture – Fixed (LF):
These spaces support traditional lecture based learning through fixed seats and writing surfaces. Typically these spaces have auditorium seating or fixed tables with power and mobile chairs. These spaces have extensive technology support
Example Rooms: Ag Engineering 100 Rotunda D
Lecture – Mobile (LM):
These spaces are often used for lecture based learning, but are relatively flexible and could accommodate other teaching methods. Typically these spaces have tablet arm chairs or mobile tables and chairs. These spaces have extensive technology support.
Example Rooms: Wagner 159 Northern Plains Biostress 102
Active Learning/Grouping (AL/G):
These spaces are collaborative in nature in that students sit and work in pods/groups. The intent is for students to be using computer/tablet technology throughout the class. Student lead discussion and learning is supported through technology & connectivity. These spaces have extensive technology including connectivity with each of the pods/groups.
Upgrades for Summer 2014
Example Rooms: Daktronics Eng Hall 260 Northern Plains Biostress 067
Collaborative (C):
These spaces have a very unique and specific set-up and teaching style. The intent is to support informal learning through varied and simultaneous activities. These spaces are not intended for lecture based learning. These spaces have varied and specialized technology.
Example Rooms: Example Example
10
Determining the Desired Number of Classrooms by Prototype Current classrooms were identified using the five prototypes above. As expected, nearly all classrooms fell into either lecture fixed (n=26) or lecture mobile (n=66). See Table below. To determine the optimal number of classrooms within each prototype, the task force queried department heads by developing a comprehensive inventory of active classes from the undergraduate and graduate catalogs. The courses were sorted by prefix and sent to appropriate department heads to identify course pedagogy preference using the classroom prototype descriptions above. If a course did not require a classroom (e.g. internship, independent study, lab, studio), the course was marked “NA”. Courses were sorted by pedagogy preference. The table below summarizes the total number of courses in each category, along with current number of classrooms, and percentages and number of desired classrooms.
Classroom Type
Current number of classrooms
Course pedagogy
preference
Desired classrooms as a
percentage
Resulting number of “desired” classrooms*
Seminar 5 221 9% 9
Lecture Fixed 26 494 20% 20
Lecture Mobile 66 1204 48% 47
Active Learning 2 446 18% 18
Collaborative 0 126 5% 5
Total 99 2491 100% 99
*This represents the distribution of desired classrooms based on preferred pedagogy
Determining the Average Cost of Each Classroom Prototype
In addition to optimal number of classrooms, a financial feasibility analyses was conducted. Cost projections were computed by classroom type. The following resulted:
From these combined data, optimal number of classroom types and financial cost for each type, a five-year classroom plan was developed.
11
Five-Year Classroom Improvement Plan Updated May, 2016
Based upon the preferred classroom type and average cost for each type, the task force developed a five-year plan for classroom improvement. When completed, it will result in the following distribution of classrooms:
Seminar 8 Lecture Fixed 24 Lecture Mobile 54 Active Learning 5 Collaborative 4 High Tech Conference Seminar* 1 *Current location of Doner Auditorium
Upgrades will begin summer of 2014 and continue through 2018. Each year, 19-20 classrooms will be renovated or improved. A master plan for the 99 classrooms was developed using a variety of factors including: rating or score of each classroom (with an attempt to address poorer quality classrooms earlier in the plan), type of classroom (developing or improving some of each classroom type each year), and location of classroom (with some attempt to economize by working on adjoining classrooms). The full 5-year work plan with each of the 99 (96) classrooms detailed with specific improvement costs can be found in Appendix D. This is a summary of the improvement plan:
BLDG ROOM # SF # STATIONS TYPE RATING
Year 1 --FY 2014 & 2015 -- Summer 2014 (completed) Agricultural Engineering 108 528 16 S 20 F
Yeager Hall 208 634 16 S NA F
Agricultural Engineering 100 2081 204 LF 20 P
Bailey Rotunda B* 1085 77 LF 25 P
Bailey Rotunda G* 1892 120 LF 20 P
SD Art Museum 104 1965 140 LF 20 P
Wagner Hall 208 1380 74 LF 21 F
Agricultural Engineering 203 1080 48 LM 27 F
Solberg Hall 8 757 32 LM 24 F
Wagner Hall 125 859 45 LM 21 P
Wagner Hall 127 862 45 LM 21 P
Wagner Hall 157 580 30 LM 20 P
Wagner Hall 159 693 36 LM 20 P
Wagner Hall 167 693 36 LM 20 P
Wagner Hall 169 580 30 LM 20 P
Wenona Hall 208 680 28 LM 34 F
McFadden Biostress Lab 67/69 1888 78 AL/G 14 F
Yeager Hall 229 1000 25 C NA F
12
BLDG ROOM # SF # STATIONS TYPE RATING
Year 2 -- FY '16 -- Summer 2015 Yeager Hall 210 682 18 S NA F
Bailey Rotunda A* 1892 113 LF 21 P
Bailey Rotunda C* 1085 61 LF 24 P
Bailey Rotunda F* 1085 70 LF 24 P
McFadden Biostress Lab 103* 1968 132 LF 16 F
Architecture, Math, and Engineering 210 972 40 LM 14 P
DePuy Military Hall 100 654 28 LM 22 F
DePuy Military Hall 101 653 28 LM 22 F
McFadden Biostress Lab 102 656 24 LM 18 P
Solberg Hall 102 884 38 LM 21 P
The Barn 123 815 48 LM 19 P
Wagner Hall 114 1389 65 LM 23 F
Wagner Hall 453 1115 40 LM 21 F
Wecota Hall 4 628 30 LM 18 P
Wintrode Student Success Center 118 982 35 LM 18 P
Yeager Hall 231 733 35 LM 21 P
Architecture, Math, and Engineering 214 969 42 AL/G 16 F
Architecture, Math, and Engineering 220 629 30 AL/G 16 F
The Barn 109 900 29 C NA F
Wecota Hall 26 544 24 C 24 F
Year 3 -- FY '17 -- Summer 2016
Wagner Hall 128 459 15 S 27 F
Wenona Hall 001 364 12 S 22 F
Alfred Dairy Science Hall 151 580 27 LF 16 P
Avera Health & Science Center 41 1946 90 LF 16 P
Avera Health & Science Center 43 1946 90 LF 16 P
Bailey Rotunda E* 1085 97 LF 23 P
Crothers Engineering Hall 204 2233 148 LF 17 F
Agricultural Engineering 122 639 35 LM 19 F
Agricultural Engineering 216 791 40 LM 19 F
Animal Science Complex 129 1201 38 LM 15 F
Crothers Engineering Hall 215 650 32 LM 17 P
Crothers Engineering Hall 223 976 40 LM 18 P
Crothers Engineering Hall 305 434 24 LM 17 P
Crothers Engineering Hall 307 544 36 LM 18 P
Crothers Engineering Hall 334 559 36 LM 18 P
Grove Hall 115 932 30 LM -- P
Solberg Hall 216 905 24 LM 23 F
Wagner Hall 131 828 45 LM 18 P
Pugsley Continuing Education Center 117 760 35 AL/G 21 F
13
BLDG ROOM # SF # STATIONS TYPE RATING
Year 4 -- FY '18 -- Summer 2017 Wenona Hall 4 310 12 S 22 F
Wenona Hall 10 508 11 S 28 F
Alfred Dairy Science Hall 100 2019 172 LF 16 F
Daktronics Engineering Hall 112 840 32 LF 15 P
Daktronics Engineering Hall 118 842 38 LF 15 P
Daktronics Engineering Hall 124 611 27 LF 14 P
Daktronics Engineering Hall 218 842 40 LF 15 P
Agricultural Engineering 208 592 40 LM 18 F
Avera Health & Science Center 27 662 40 LM 14 P
Avera Health & Science Center 282 860 60 LM 14 P
Avera Health & Science Center 380 897 50 LM 14 P
Avera Health & Science Center 382 584 40 LM 14 P
McFadden Biostress Lab 119 944 32 LM 19 F
McFadden Biostress Lab 122 944 32 LM 19 F
Solberg Hall 215 879 38 LM 23 P
Yeager Hall 206 437 30 LM 16 F
Yeager Hall 212 653 49 LM 16 F
Daktronics Engineering Annex 260 804 48 AL/G 14 F
Year 5 -- FY '19 -- Summer 2018 Wecota Hall 2 402 14 S 21 F
Animal Science Complex 126 3180 219 LF 17 P
Bailey Rotunda A* 1892 113 LF 21 P
Bailey Rotunda B* 1085 77 LF 25 P
Bailey Rotunda C* 1085 61 LF 24 P
Bailey Rotunda D 3861 387 LF 20 P
Bailey Rotunda E* 1085 97 LF 23 P
Bailey Rotunda F* 1085 70 LF 24 P
Bailey Rotunda G* 1892 120 LF 20 P
Berg Agricultural Hall 100A 1422 110 LF 16 F
Berg Agricultural Hall 100B 916 62 LF 16 F
Daktronics Engineering Annex 370 966 39 LF 14 P
McFadden Biostress Lab 103* 1968 132 LF 16 F
Avera Health & Science Center 280 871 60 LM 14 P Key: Seminar = 8
Crothers Engineering Hall 209 987 65 LM 14 P Lecture Fixed=24
Crothers Engineering Hall 217 652 32 LM 15 F Lecture Mobile=54
Crothers Engineering Hall 351 1176 38 LM 21 F Collaborative=4
Hansen Hall 4 1078 60 LM 17 F Active Learning/Group=5
Hansen Hall 8 881 42 LM 21 F HiTech Conference Seminar=1
Hansen Hall 10 1171 49 LM 17 F F=Full upgrade
Honors Hall 118 928 32 LM 14 P P=Partial upgrade
McFadden Biostress Lab 28 970 48 LM 16 P *rooms listed more than once
McFadden Biostress Lab 184 538 24 LM 14 F
Stanley J Marshall HPER Center 104 1357 72 LM NA F
Stanley J Marshall HPER Center 120 628 34 LM NA F
TBD TBD 1000 49 LM NA F
Briggs Library ? 600 24 C NA F
Administration-Doner 211 5938 60 Hi Tech Conference Seminar
F
14
A year-by-year presentation of the project cost can be found below. The total cost for the 5-year improvement plan in today’s dollars is $9,097,780. However, using a 3% inflation factor to account for anticipated cost increases over a 5-year period, the adjusted estimate is $10,239,631. Of the $10.2M, approximately $4,320,000 in university funding has been identified through HEFF M&R and technology budgets. This leaves a deficit of approximately $5 million. Please see Appendix D for yearly detail in costs, and Appendix E for a detailed cost analysis of the technology budget. It is important to note that the technology costs outlined in this report refer to classroom technology such as projector, document camera, etc. The university has a significant investment in the network that connects the classroom technology as well as the cloud environment and wireless infrastructure, all of which supports student learning. These network and infrastructure costs are outside of this plan. The classroom plan with unmet need was presented to the SDSU Foundation Board of Governors as a funding priority. At this time, the Governors/Trustees are developing their 5-year strategic plan with funding priorities, and the classroom need has been included.
Technology Architecture Furniture 3% Inflation
Year 1 FY '14 & '15 Required $305,500 $1,166,485 $687,525
Web Presence for Classrooms A web presence has been developed for university classrooms. A Goggle campus map identifies buildings with university classrooms including identification of the classroom with room number and photo. In addition, classrooms can be searched by a variety of filters including: type of space, capacity/seats, location, available resources/features, etc. The web site also allows individuals to inquire about scheduling the room, request technical assistance with a classroom and provide room feedback. http://www.sdstate.edu/resources/rooms/index.cfm
Beginning in early November, 2013, a draft of the 5-year Classroom Improvement plan was shared with the campus for reaction and feedback. In addition to posting the plan on Inside State, task force members visited the following leadership and shared governance bodies to present the plan and invite feedback.
University Management Team: Scott Pedersen, Lew Brown, Kristi Tornquist, Kay Trooien Faculty Senate: Scott Pedersen, Jennifer Quail, Kay Trooien Professional Staff Advisory Council: Aaron Aure, Kay Trooien, Laurie Nichols Student Association: Kristi Tornquist, Lois Tschetter Civil Service Advisory: Marvin Clark Executive Team: Dean Kattelmann, Laurie Nichols Town Hall Meeting: Laurie Nichols SDSU Foundation Staff: Laurie Nichols SDSU Foundation Board of Governors: Laurie Nichols Media: Brookings Register, Dec 14, 2013 Brookings Economic Development Corporation newsletter, January, 2014 Brookings Register, Jan 16, 2014
Feedback was overwhelmingly positive; overall those who reviewed were impressed with the plan and felt, when implemented, it would greatly improve the teaching and learning environment. Several concrete suggestions were provided and have been incorporated into the plan including:
1. Review the number of desks in lecture mobile classrooms. Some of these classrooms have too many desks for the square footage making circulation and overall movement a problem. This can also become an accessibility issue. Attend to maximum capacity.
2. As you order new desks, pay attention to the size (frame) of the desk and the tablet/writing surface of the desk. Both should be increased for comfort and functionality.
3. As you renovate classrooms, include more outlets.
4. WiFi capacity of some classrooms needs to increase.
5. For those classrooms that were returned to the department/college, but sure there is accountability for improvements to these as well.
17
6. Develop a standing University Classroom Committee whose charge is to ensure overall teaching and learning quality including continuation of updates after the five-year time period. The committee will report to the Provost, although representatives from Classroom Technology Services and Facilities and Services will need to be represented as well.
7. Formulate a faculty/student advisory group to advise those who will be making the improvements (e.g. Classroom Technology Services and Facilities and Services). The advisory group could work over the summer to provide advice on furniture purchases, classroom layout, placement of technology, etc.
With this feedback incorporated into the implementation plan, the Taskforce formally approved this plan in January, 2014.
18
References
Houtman, N. (2013, Spring). Online and face-to-face: Active learning combines technology and
teamwork. Terra, Oregon State University, p. 29-31.
Kennedy, M. (2013, March). Today’s learning spaces. American School and University, 30-32. Maximizing space utilization: Measuring, allocating, and incentivizing efficient use of facilities. 2010.
Education Advisory Board, Washington, D.C. Michael, J. (2013, March). The changing classroom environment: Ideas for updating furniture and
furnishings in educational facilities. American School and University, 26-29. Millard, E. (2013). Setting the foundation for high-tech spaces. (July, 2013). University Business, 27-29. Painter, S., Fournier, J., Grape, C., et. al. (2013). Research on learning space design: Present state,
future directions. Society of College and University Planning. Planning for Assessing 21st Century Spaces for 21st Century Learners (2013, November). Narum, J.L. (Ed).
Learning Spaces Collaboratory. New Classrooms Building Projects at:
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Cornell
University of California-Davis
University of Minnesota
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
University of Wisconsin
University of Wyoming
19
Appendix A
Report from JBA Consultant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Appendix B
Classroom Evaluation Rating
28
29
SDSU General Classroom Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Evaluation Descriptions Building/Room: _____________________________ Feature Possible Notes Ratings Flooring 1, 2, 3 (1) newly installed (2) unsure about install but still functioning (3) asbestos tile or areas with missing or damaged tiles or stained carpet
If the flooring is concrete and is safe and functional should it be rated at (1) or rated at (3) because we want all the space to have some type of covering & not just concrete
Comment: Walls 1, 2, 3 (1) newly painted (2) in need of touch-up (3) in very bad condition, in need of patching/repair most ratings will be (2) because most space is in need of touch-up Comment: Window Coverings 1, 2, 3 (1) relatively new and functioning blinds. This rating is also used when a room does
not have any windows. (2) outdated and/or poorly installed blinds (3) not functional in keeping out the light or missing entirely Comment: Ceilings 1, 2, 3 (1) suspended ceiling with all tile in excellent condition; or finished ceiling in
excellent condition, no spots or discoloring (2) suspended ceiling with some damaged/missing/discolored tiles; finished ceiling in need of repair
(3) ceiling in need of major repair - beyond replacing a few ceiling tiles Comment: Furniture 1, 2, 3 (1) furniture 5 years or newer, use of alternative seating solutions (2) average condition furniture, maybe dated colors/style
(3) old wooden tablet armchairs - too small for today's students & teaching methods
Comment: Furniture 1,3 (1) movable or adjustable allowing for reconfiguration of set-up (3) fixed to flow; not movable Comment: Space Cooled 1, 3 (1) space is cooled (3) space is not cooled Comment: Whiteboard 1, 2, 3 (1) whiteboard and in good condition (2) whiteboard in need of repair/replacement (3) chalkboard Comment:
30
Lighting Control 1, 3 (1) adjustable (3) not adjustable Comment: Sightlines 1, 3 (1) no obstructions, good sightlines (3) obstructions, poor sightlines Comment: Accessibility 1, 3 (1) building & room are accessible (3) building & room are not accessible Comment: Circulation 1, 3 (1) good circulation throughout the room for instructor & students (3) poor circulation space, room is overcrowded, too many stations for size of room Comment: Acoustics 1, 2, 3 (1) No distracting noises nor does sound bounce (2) Some noise from HVAC but sound is acceptable (3) Noisy air exchange/sound bounces/difficult to hear Comment: Technology 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (1) fully enhanced technology is within 5 years of age (2) fully enhanced technology is older than 5 years [Marvin Clark and his team (3) partial technology within 5 years of age will evaluate each classroom (4) partial technology is older than 5 years on this criteria. You can omit (5) not enhanced or minimal technology this score.] Comment: Check category which best describes the classification of classroom for the database (see attached for descriptions) Classroom type: Discussion/Seminar Lecturer Grouping Collaborative Imaging
31
Appendix C University Classrooms Policy and Procedure
Office/Contact: Office of Academic Affairs
Source: SDBOR Maintenance and Repair Policy 6:6, SDBOR Facilities Use by Private Parties Policy
5-Year University Improvement Plan with Detailed Cost Estimate BLDG ROOM # SF # STATIONS TYPE RATING Technology Architecture Furniture Notes Annual Investmt