University of Washington Learning Space Assessment

University of WashingtonLearning Space Assessment

Report - June 2014

1.0 Executive Summary 1

2.0 Goals and Process 15

3.0 Context and Physical Attributes 21

4.0 Observations 47

5.0 Utilization 77

6.0 Technology 111

7.0 Recommendations 127

8.0 Acknowledgments 141

9.0 Appendix 143

Table of Contents

University of Washington / Learning Space Assessment

June 20141

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

The University of Washington Learning Space Assessment is a study of the current (Fall 2013) general purpose classrooms on the Seattle campus. The study is the result of a University of Washington faculty and staff task force charged by the University Provost to guide a concise and comprehensive review of the University of Washington’s classrooms needs in light of changing instructional methodologies.

The study evaluates utilization rates, scheduling practices, technology deployment and policies, and the physical condition of classroom spaces. The intention is to better understand opportunities for improved delivery of learning space options that are focused on supporting faculty, diverse pedagogical initiatives and a student experience enhanced by integrated and appropriate technologies.

This report documents the study findings and is structured to provide a summary of the material developed with and presented to the task force over the course of four workshop sessions during the fall of 2013 and through the spring of 2014. The report also provides a detailed documentation of the evaluation materials, database sources, and surveys results to offer a reference and guide as the University further develops strategies to support learning spaces on campus. Organized into 9 Sections, the report provides a discussion of the topics identified, summarized and evaluated during the course of the study. The report includes a list of specific recommendations included at the end of this section and through a detailed listing provided in Section 7 of the report.

Fundamental to the overall study is the understanding that the Seattle Campus operates today with two components - Upper Campus and Health Sciences. The two components have separate databases, organizational structures and support services. Seeking to understand the whole campus, the study evaluated the two pieces simultaneously, although identifying the components separately.

It is also important to point out what was not addressed. Specifically, the spaces on campus not addressed in this study include all campus learning spaces that are directly controlled by individual Colleges, Departments and/or are managed under special use agreements. Only classroom spaces administered as general use classrooms, including the Health Sciences spaces, are included.

1.2 Process

The approach undertaken by the team was based on an analysis of both quantitative and qualitative information. This approach provides the University with tools to make informed and data-driven decisions relative to classroom



June 20142


capital improvements, policies, and procedures. This was accomplished through an analysis of performance characteristics, an assessment of current technology and needs, and a determination of infrastructure requirements. The evaluations were all informed by input from campus leaders, faculty, and staff. The approach stresses the interrelated nature of technology, learning space configuration and size, utilization rates, geographic distribution, management and overall space ownership policies.

The process of the study was structured around four, multi-day, on-campus workshops held with task force members and supplemented with tours, facility and student surveys, follow-up conference calls and data exchanges. All workshops were led by the consultant team that included ZGF Architects, Rickes Associates and Vantage Technology.

1.3 Core Principles

During the workshop sessions, the task force identified and refined the following core principles as essential to the process of the study:

• Understand current utilization of classrooms• Define key characteristics to include in renovated and new classrooms• Assess adequacy of instructional technology• Identify opportunities and constraints of a centralized facilities management

database• Develop decision-making tools to help prioritize resource allocation for

renovations, upgrades, and new learning spaces.• Inform a five year plan to support funding requests and questions from

administration

The list of core principles were summarized and best expressed as related to the convergence of the following three themes: Scheduling, Teaching, and Allocating

1.4 Drivers

During the study and as recommendations began to emerge, a set of drivers emerged that created an overall organization to the diverse range of topics explored by the task force. The drivers include Scheduling, Physical Space and Technology.

Scheduling

Several components of scheduling were explored during the study and included scheduling blocks, scheduling distribution, and overall calendar systems - semesters v. quarters.

The study revealed that the overall number of general purpose classrooms needed on campus is being driven by current University of Washington scheduling norms and the analysis of the data suggests that a revised approach to scheduling practices could reduce the number of rooms needed on the Seattle campus (both Health Sciences and Upper Campus) to support current curricular demand. If implemented, scheduling adjustments could also deliver higher classroom utilization rates. One advantage of utilizing a revised

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

Study Observations• Adequate space exists on campus to

meet instructional needs• Learning spaces across campus are

evenly distributed geographically • Mismatch of course enrollments to

classroom capacities


June 20143


scheduling approach is that it is not a capital dollar intensive adjustment and can lead to operational savings over time due to the need for fewer rooms required to accommodate the same number of courses.

There are two fundamental issues that need to be addressed in order to realize the suggested classroom inventory refinements: scheduling blocks and scheduling distribution.

Scheduling Blocks

The UW does not currently adhere to a formalized block scheduling standard. Although a number of courses comply with a block-time organizational model, many do not and these outliers create significant inefficiencies for the system as a whole. The inefficiencies, in turn, drive the required number of classrooms on campus. This is explored in greater detail within the document. Creating and enforcing a campus wide class block standard is recommended.

School

TotalCourses

21

144 5 2 1 1

2 1 1 11 13 1 1 4 8

7 1 1 2 1 1 1134 1 21 4 1 2

2 111 1 2

2 1 1 1 1135 1 18 9 1 1 1 3

9 3 11 23 1 4 14 1

2130 15 6 1 1

6 1 1 116 1 2

3 1 192 1 15 5 1 1

7 21 25 1 2 2 1

3 154 12 3 1 1 1

14 1 2 1 146 3 1 13 1

4 132 1 1 11 1 1 4

6 2 1 1 11 14 5 3 1 1 1

1 11 1 2

14 2 743 1 7 1 8 2

1 1

11903 9 10 145 47 8 50 2 3 13 3 1 5

1:30

to 2

:30

2:30

to 3

:30

3:30

to 4

:30

BEN EDU

7:30

to 8

:30

8:30

to 9

:30

9:30

to 1

0:30

10:3

0 to

11:

3011

:30

to 1

2:30

12:3

0 to

1:3

0

PUH SSWCAS FBU GIS INF IOI MED NURENG ENV EPA

Figure 1-01: Distribution of Classrooms by Day and Time, Upper CampusMany 50-minute courses are scheduled in standard blocks beginning on the half-hour, represented by dark blue bars. Non-standard blocks are shown as light blue. The number of courses in each time block is shown. Ideally, courses scheduled for longer than 50 minutes should begin and end in sync with standard blocks (scheduled as “double blocks”).(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)


June 20144


An overall organizing component of scheduling blocks is the time between classes or the pass-time. The study reviewed the idea of moving to a 15 minute pass-time from the current 10 minutes as a way to address travel distance and campus topography issues for faculty and students. The added time was also seen as an important way to address set-up anxiety often felt by faculty utilizing more and more complex technology configurations. Depending on the scheduling window configuration model selected, the added pass-time could be accommodated and the University could still realize a total reduction in rooms needed.

Scheduling Distribution

The second item that drives the number of required classrooms relates to scheduling distribution. The UW currently utilizes less than an 8 hour a day window of time for the majority of courses. This 40 hour/week (or less) scheduling distribution window is below many of UW’s peer institutions (50 hour/week is not uncommon) and increases the number of classrooms needed to support the current curriculum. Moving to an expanded scheduling window is recommended.

Figure 1-02: Distribution of Classrooms by Day and Time, Upper CampusWICHE and CEFPI recognizes 67% as the target utilization rate. While the average seat occupancy hovers near the target 67 percent throughout the day and week, there are clear “peak” days and times for room hour utilization. On Upper Campus, there is high use from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. every day, with a drop-off through the afternoon (more precipitously on Friday).(Source: WICHE. Higher Education Facilities Planning and Management Manuals. Manual Two: Classroom and Class Laboratory Facilities.Source: CEFPI Space Planning for Institutions of Higher Education.Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Univsersity of Washington Distribution of Classrooms by Day and Time

C:\Users\elizabeth.schultz\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\ZR6G187D\5-12 distribution of classrooms by day and time upper campus.xlsxUpper Campus

7:30 A

M

8:00 A

M

8:30 A

M

9:00 A

M

9:30 A

M

10:00

AM

10:30

AM

11:00

AM

11:30

AM

12:00

PM

12:30

PM

1:00 P

M

1:30 P

M

2:00 P

M

2:30 P

M

3:00 P

M

3:30 P

M

4:00 P

M

4:30 P

M

5:00 P

M

5:30 P

M

6:00 P

M

6:30 P

M

7:00 P

M

7:30 P

M

8:00 P

M

8:30 P

M

Percent RoomsScheduled

Persent SeatsOccupied

Goal, on average,67%

67%

67%

67%

67%

67%

FRID

AY

|

THU

RSDA

Y

|

W

EDN

ESDA

Y

|

TU

ESDA

Y

|

MO

NDA

Y


June 20145


Although the study reviewed issues related to the University’s quarter system and evaluated the potential benefits of a semester based schedule, the conclusion of the study is to recommend additional study to fully and better understand all the drivers and constraints related to such a shift.

Physical Space

The potential to change the way the campus schedules classroom space addresses one aspect of classroom utilization and efficiency but does not address issues directly related to the physical space. There are many physical aspects of a classroom space that support successful learning environments. Utilizing square feet per seat metrics specific to the type and configuration of classroom environments, the study evaluated the alignment of the current classrooms with commonly utilized space (square feet) per seat standards.

The analysis for the square feet per seat data creates a chart that tracks how well the rooms meet the criteria – either over or under. The next step of the study was to ‘right size’ the classrooms or shift the projected room capacity to align with the proposed metrics. This so called ‘right sizing’ allowed a refined understanding of the optimized capacities of the current classroom stock on campus. When this data is graphed with room size demand information, the graphs offer an insight into the type and size of classrooms needed, which rooms are adequately provided on campus, which are in need and which are in surplus. The right sizing exercise typically suggested that many rooms needed to shift down in capacity to provide more square feet per seat to meet the criteria. This shift would relieve room congestion, provide better access and maneuverability within the classrooms and offer the potential for greater flexibility within the room to better accommodate varied teaching styles and methodologies. This exercise was done for both the Upper Campus and the Health Sciences.

Pass Time40-Hour

Scheduling Window50-Hour

Scheduling Window

15 Minutes 297 260

10 Minutes 260 210

Figure 1-03: Number of Classrooms Needed with Scheduling Window and Pass Time ScenariosVarious classroom need scenarios were explored using a 40- and 50-hour scheduling window and a 10- and 15-minute pass time.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis/recommendations)

The potential impact of a regular block scheduling approach and an extended scheduling distribution window is dramatic, offering a reduced number of required classrooms on campus. The conclusion of the study is that the UW has a sufficient number classrooms and likely could operate with fewer. The current count of 306 general purpose classrooms may be able to be reduced to 260. This conclusion offers the opportunity to focus limited resources in a focused way on fewer classrooms. An additional benefit is that the campus could convert some of the anticipated surplus classrooms into different types of learning opportunities to meet the need for more informal learning spaces or perhaps create unique incubator spaces for teaching methodology exploration and innovation.

Benefits of Right-Sized Classroom Model• Aligns learning space environments

with pedagogy• Identifies surplus spaces• Allows development of additional

informal learning spaces• Allows development of sandbox

learning spaces• Identifies future classroom size needs


June 20146


Learning Space Assessment

EXISTING CLASSROOM INVENTORY: UPPER CAMPUS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-125

126-150

151-175

176-200

201-250

251-300

301-350

351-400

401-500

501-600

601-700

701-800

Current 28 94 58 48 13 8 11 10 6 5 5 3 4 7 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 Right-Sized 50 104 48 25 9 11 12 6 7 7 7 3 4 7 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 Need 58 61 45 16 17 26 4 3 8 5 3 2 4 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1

Total All Classrooms

Current Classroom Inventory: 306

Classroom Need: 260

Feb 2014

Figure 1-04: Existing, Right-Sized, and Proposed Classrooms, Upper CampusFor each size category, current classrooms on Upper Campus are shown relative to existing classrooms if they were right-sized. The calculated classroom need for each range is shown to compare against the current and right-sized inventory. (Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

The chart for the upper campus illustrates that the campus potentially has a large surplus of 25 seat classrooms and an unmet demand for 60-90 seat classrooms. This trend is not uncommon on campuses today as class sizes are typically trending upwards. The Health Sciences spaces show similar surpluses and unmet demand but also indicates a deficit of classrooms in the 61- to 90-seat range.

In both cases, Health Sciences and Upper Campus, the room for room accounting indicates overall surpluses once scheduling efficiencies are implemented. Just how much those surpluses can be realized likely varies due to ‘soft’ uses of the spaces that do not show up formally as the result of regular curricular assignments. The soft use of learning spaces indicates a demand for informal learning spaces that can be either reserved on an hour by hour basis by students or spaces that simply allow an open impromptu gathering outside formal class time. The ‘surplus’ rooms offer the opportunity to provide spaces for a number of unmet space needs across campus including informal learning spaces.


June 20147



EXISTING CLASSROOM INVENTORY: HEALTH SCIENCES

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-125 126-150 151-175 176-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-500 Current 12 12 4 3 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 Right-Sized 16 9 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 Need 7 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0



Classroom Need (Course Demand): 20

Feb 2014

Figure 1-05: Existing, Right-Sized, and Proposed Classrooms, Health SciencesFor each size category, current classrooms on the Health Sciences Campus are shown relative to existing classrooms if they were right-sized. The calculated classroom need for each range is shown to compare against the current and right-sized inventory. Classrooms are currently used for events and testing sessions somewhat unique to Health Sciences. Classroom need is based on course demand only, and does not account for other uses.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)


June 20148


In Section 3 of the report, a data driven, consumer report style evaluation of all of the classrooms is highlighted that offers an additional tool to the University when creating priorities related to classroom modifications, renovations and refurbishments. A representative group of classrooms from the evaluation were visited to document the current condition and better understand the range of technology and condition issues and is also include in Section 3.

In addition to the physical spaces of the campus, the overall geographic distribution was evaluated to understand potential constraints due to topography, facility adjacencies and/or distance. The analysis included diagramming current residence halls, current and future major public transportation modes, and the range of classroom types and locations. Section 3 of the report includes analysis of these topics.

Technology

During the course of the study, all of the surveys, interviews and discussions resulted in a consistent set of issues related to technology on campus. Typically, technology is seen as inconsistently deployed, unreliable and cumbersome to operate predictably. Together these issues cause a high degree of anxiety among faculty and result in the continued use of older technologies – overhead projectors for example – that are expensive to maintain and limit broader technological integration. Despite a capable staff to support technology, the variable funding history has created a significant backlog of projects related to deployment, replacement and maintenance. The study recommends several areas of focus including the development of standards for learning space technology – what the basic set-up for every room ideally should be, establishment of a technology replacement policy - so that on a regular basis the technology in a classroom will be updated, and a regular, focused funding source created - to support the two previous recommendations.

Standards The campus maintains a wide variety and degree of technologies in classrooms that span from a mobile cart-based approach to full distance learning, interactive systems. In addition, the campus maintains numerous overhead projectors with acetate rollers and many desktop computers at lecterns. While the options likely meet the specific needs of some faculty, the cost of maintaining legacy technologies is significant and the equity of doing so is unclear. This is illustrated through login data for the desktops at lecterns that indicate only a handful of faculty are using the desktop infrastructure. The cost to continue to provide the desktops at the lectern comes at a significant premium and adds complexity. The development of clear technology standards that are universally deployed would provide predictability for faculty, ease of maintenance for support staff and provide guidance for a regular funding model. It is recommended that the standards apply to the entire campus, including Health Sciences, to support predictability and a system of support that is the same across the entire campus.

Faculty SupportIn order to maximize the benefit of current and improved technologies and support pedagogical innovation and exploration, it is recommended that the University create an enhanced support system to aid faculty in the transition towards and development of curriculum that can anticipate and leverage integrated technologies.

Current State of Technology • Technology is underfunded on

campus compared to peers• Capable staff on campus but too few• Current refresh cycle limits

pedagogical innovation

Technology Funding Supports• Enhanced reliability • Increased curriculum alignment

opportunities• Encourages pedagogical innovation


June 20149


1.5 Funding

Technology

The study evaluated the funding of technology by the University of Washington and compared the spending level to peer institutions. The average spending by the University, on a dollars per room basis, was below that of peer institutions. This fact is evident by the typically older equipment deployed, the lack of any technology in some rooms and the high degree of technology variability found across campus.

Developing and funding a technology update schedule (refresh rate) of about 7 years is recommended and would address issues of reliability, allow better alignment with curriculum demands and support pedagogical innovation.

The study evaluated funding models that would allow the University to support technology at levels that sought to ensure broad deployment of current technology. The models considered scenarios that reflect both the current total classroom counts and alternatives that reflect reduced classroom counts as suggested earlier and achieved as a result of scheduling efficiencies. The values indicate that a recommended 7 year refresh rate for the current classroom inventory should be funded at a level of $1,785,000/year. If the number of classrooms is reduced through scheduling efficiencies, the cost could be reduced to $1,405,000/year, a savings of $380,000/year.

An additional variable reviewed as part of the cost study portion of technology included implementation options. The options examined varied from a surge approach to rapidly advance the level of technology on campus to an approach that more slowly ramped up implementation.

Figure 1-06: Revised Projection Model of Classroom Technology Conditions Annually (With Policy Improvements) Until Fiscal Year 2036:A graphic representation of the start, annual iteration, and end-state classroom technology conditions on campus based on a computer projection of UW performance on the Upper Campus after implementing policy and funding recommendations.Conditions meet or exceed peers within 7 years, the model is run for 22 years for comparison with Figure 6-07. (Data Source: Assessment Team Computer Model, using 2013 UW Classroom Assessment Data and a 7-year system lifecycle. See Appendix)


June 201410


Figure 1-08: Illustration of 3 Methods for Increasing Classroom Technology CapabilityAn approximate illustration of the three strategies described:• Option 1 shows the timeline of

renovation activity as UW-IT in-house staff (in gold) expand to meet demand.

• Option 2 shows the timeline for outsourcing (in Purple) some or all renovation activity

• Option 3 shows the timeline for a “Surge” approach

Figure 1-07: Scheduling Policy Impact on Classroom Technology Funding and IT Department CapacityThe following table outlines the impact scheduling policy has on the funding and workload of UW-IT, as described below:Campus Parameters: The first two table rows summarize current conditions on each campus. “UW Seattle, Combined” row is the total of both campuses (relevant if UW pursues a more centralized management). The next two table rows represent each campus with a recommended 50-hour week and 15 minute pass time between classes, with both totaled in the last row.The impact of each Campus Parameter is shown on the estimated number of classrooms, required quantity of annual renovations, annual technology renovation costs, and growth required in the UW IT group (compared to 2013 operations) in order to sustain those rooms.As an example, UW Classroom Technology costs on the Upper Campus may be reduced by $240,000 (or more) annually by implementing optimal course scheduling policies and sizing rooms. (Source: 2013 Classroom Assessment Data. See Sections 1.0, 3.0, 5.0 for more information on policies.)


June 201411


New Construction, Renovation, and Refurbishment

The study evaluated three alternative cost planning approaches that could be used to address learning space upgrade needs: new construction, renovation and refurbishment. All of the cost profiles described exclude the technology equipment cost associated with each of the options as it is anticipated that those costs would be addressed by a specific and separate technology refresh budget.

Analysis of the projected annual costs associated with a refurbishment approach follows the same set of options utilized by the technology cost analysis. Whereas the technology cost analysis is based on an average cost per room, the refurbishment cost model utilized an average size room of 1,500 SF which is a calculated average for the campus. This figure was then multiplied by the number of rooms to be refurbished to set an annual quantity of square feet to be refurbished.

The analysis indicates that the refurbishment cost associated with the current classroom inventory, and aligned with the technology refresh rate, gives a projected annual cost between $5,737,500 - $8,032,500. If scheduling efficiencies employed, the cost could be reduced to $4,500,000 and $6,300,000 annually, a savings of between $1,237,000 and $1,737,500 per year.

Extent of Building Construction

Building Size in GSF

Estimated Building Cost, $ per SF**

Building Renovation* 60,000 $350-425 21,000,000$ - 25,500,000$

New Construction 60,000 $450-500 27,000,000$ - 30,000,000$

* Building Renovation includes: upgrade of structural systems, ADA accessibility, mechanical upgrades, Engery Code requirements, and room finishes.** Cost estimates assume May 2014 USD construction cost, not project cost.

Estimated Total Building Cost

Figure 1-10: Estimated Refurbishment Room CostsSuggested possible refurbishment cost ranges based on a series of scenarios - these alternatives are the same options explored later in the report as part of the cost review for technology upgrades. Note the cost to refurbish existing spaces into active learning spaces is significantly more as illustrated in the column to the far right. Furniture costs are excluded from the table, but could be assumed to be between $25-35/GSF.(Data Source: JMB Consulting Group LLC)

Figure 1-09: Estimated Building Renovation and New Construction CostsComparison of relative construction costs for a fully renovated facility v. new construction. Furniture costs are excluded from the table, but could be assumed to be between $25-35/GSF.(Data Source: JMB Consulting Group LLC)

Campus ParameterRequired Number of

Refurbishment Rooms, per year

Total SF of Refurbishment Rooms,

per year*

Upper Campus, Current Scheduling

44 66,000 4,950,000$ - 6,930,000$

HSC, Current Scheduling

7 10,500 787,500$ - 1,102,500$

UW Seattle Combined, Current Scheduling

51 76,500 5,737,500$ - 8,032,500$

Upper Campus, 15min Pass & 50 hour week

37 55,500 4,162,500$ - 5,827,500$

HSC, 15 min Pass & 50 hour week

3 4,500 337,500$ - 472,500$

UW Seattle Combined Optimal Scheduling

40 60,000 4,500,000$ - 6,300,000$

** Refurbishment Room Cost range based on May 2014 USD; if being converted to an active learning space, cost would be closer to $225/SF.

Estimated Total Refurbishment Room Cost, per year ($75/SF -

$105/SF)**

* Refurbishment Room SF is an estimate average of 1500 SF per room. Room refurbishment of existing classroom includes: walls, floor, and ceiling finishes ONLY, minor MEP relocations, and new lighting.

OPTI

ON 1

OPTI

ON 2


June 201412


It is important to note that the cost assumptions utilized do not account for a cost premium often associated with the development of active learning style spaces due to enhanced technology infrastructure requirements. If an active learning space is anticipated, the cost for that portion of the refurbishment could be anticipated to be a rate $225/SF.

The variable figures provided for both funding technology and refurbishment illustrate the potential impact that improved scheduling efficiency could have on the overall ability of the University to maintain the best possible leaning spaces.

1.6 Recommendations

The recommendations developed with the task force capture the range of topics that would place the UW among its peer institutions in terms of facility utilization, hours of operation and support for technology and innovation in teaching methodologies. The organization of the list represents a recommended order of priority but it is not intended to suggest that any of the items should or could be excluded. The recommendations are to be seen as an interrelated group with each offering advantages but which combined, offer the greatest advantage.

1 - CLASSROOM GOVERNANCE COMMITTEEEstablish a Classroom Governance Committee “super group” to enhance coordination between learning environment stakeholders and to develop and oversee strategic policies

2 - BLOCK SCHEDULEDevelop clearly defined time blocks with an associated number of days each week, and increase pass time to 15 minutes

3 - SCHEDULE DISTRIBUTIONCreate departmental requirements and incentives to schedule a particular percentage of courses during off-peak times

4 - WEEKLY SCHEDULING WINDOWExpand daily schedule to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

5 - RIGHT-SIZE CLASSROOMSIdentify rooms to “right-size” by adding or removing seats to achieve an appropriate average square footage per seat

6 - PREDICTABLE FUNDINGAllocate regular funds for strategic technology and room renovations, sufficient to meet UW needs

7 - SYSTEM LIFECYCLE POLICYA replacement cycle (7-year recommended) for technology systems in general-assignment classrooms

8 - FACULTY SUPPORT FOR TEACHING AND LEARNINGExpand the existing Center for Teaching and Learning to a full-time resource for instructors for technology support and curriculum design

9 - TECHNOLOGY STANDARDIZATIONEstablish/Formalize technology standards, in coordination with classroom stakeholders, to govern future projects


June 201413


10 - INFORMAL LEARNING SPACESRenovate and/or increase the number of informal learning spaces with desirable amenities and in preferred locations

11 - PROPRIETARY CLASSROOMSReview the existing inventory of proprietary classrooms for opportunities to fill gaps in general-assignment classroom schedule

12 - SEMESTER SYSTEMExplore moving to a semester-based academic calendar


June 201414



June 201415

2.0 Goals and Process

2.1 Overview

The overall objective of the study is to facilitate a process that asks and addresses questions to help the University develop strategies to create a system of instructional spaces to support faculty and students in light of changing pedagogy and learning styles.

Specifically, the study was tasked with addressing the following items:

• Understand current utilization of classrooms• Define key characteristics to include in renovated and new classrooms• Assess adequacy of instructional technology• Identify opportunities and constraints of a centralized facilities management

database• Develop decision-making tools to help prioritize resource allocation for

renovations, upgrades, and new learning spaces.• Inform a five year plan to support funding requests and questions from

administration

Over the course of the study, the following list of expanded topics emerged as central issues to be explored and evaluated.



June 201416


Optimizing Utilization of Existing Campus Learning Space Resources

What Policy changes would have the most positive impact?• Who ‘owns’ the spaces• Schedule adjustments – length of day• Schedule control/regularity – universal fixed schedule• Quarters v. Semesters• Periodic approach to updating spaces• Support faculty adoption of new pedagogies and technologies

What is the right portfolio of learning spaces?• Are spaces in the right location on campus• Are spaces the right size

º # of Seats º SF per Seat

Are spaces the right type to support pedagogy?• Lecture - fixed• Active learning• Moveable, reconfigurable

Are spaces fitted–out appropriately to support learning objectives?• Technology• Furniture• Finishes

Reliably Providing and Supporting Technology Needs

Do all learning spaces need technology?• Is there a basic technology set-up• Are there opportunities for demonstration or special technologies

º How much/many


June 201417


Improving Funding Methodologies/Strategies/Approaches

Funding Source Coordination and alignment• Current funding methodology issues

º Room use fees (rent from non-program events) º Student fees - Capital resources/projects

• Technology Catch-up $ (for the next 5 years)• Technology Refresh $ (annual budget forever)• Physical Space (renovation)

º Maintenance (operating) resources/projects• Technology (fixing $)• Physical Space (paint)

Identifying Opportunities for Innovation/Advancement of Learning Resources at UW

New Learning Space Paradigms• What is a desirable pedagogical mix?

º More active learning spaces º Support for faculty innovation º Does the investment actually translate into the use of the room º Can the UW support and train with certainty faculty innovation º Leverage early adopters to encourage other faculty participation - Need space to support

• Are there opportunities for increased access and support (technology) for informal learning spaces?

• Are there new pedagogical models that are worth testing?

Defining key characteristics for classrooms updates

How can we support the prioritization of renovations/updates?• Geography• Technology need• Demand for room size

Define Standards• Evaluate the degree of flexibility• Applying UW Technology Standard• Access (ADA)• Standards for ASF/seat

As is often the case, the study revealed areas of continued interest and items that would benefit from closer and additional review. The following list highlights several of the topics that the University may wish to investigate further in the future:• Specialized instructional spaces analysis• Informal learning spaces analysis• Proprietary rooms identification and data confirm


June 201418


2.2 Process

The purpose of this study has been to comprehensively review the University’s general use classrooms needs. The outcomes and data analysis provides the University with tools and recommendations necessary to help ensure instructional spaces are equipped, scheduled, and maintained to maximize pedagogical effectiveness, provide improved environments, and better understand the drivers and relationships between location and student and faculty populations.

The approach undertaken by the team was based on the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative information. This holistic approach provides the University with tools to make informed and data-driven decisions relative to classroom capital improvements, policies, and procedures. This was accomplished through an analysis of performance characteristics, an assessment of technology needs, and a determination of infrastructure requirements, informed by input from campus leaders, faculty, and staff pertaining to future instructional space and scheduling and policy needs.

Our approach stressed the interrelated nature of technology, learning space configuration and size, utilization, geographic distribution, management and overall space ownership policies.

The process of the study was structured around four, multi-day, on-campus workshops held with task force members and supplemented with tours, follow-up conference calls and data exchanges (Figure 2-01). All workshops were led by the consultant team that included ZGF, Rickes Associates and Vantage. The workshops and related tasks were defined as follows:

Workshop/TASK 1

Kick-off and Goal Setting Session, Baseline Information Identification, Data Gathering and Campus and Learning Space Tours

Workshop/TASK 2

Initial Data and Campus Mapping Review, Survey Materials Evaluation and Review, Various Faculty, College Dean Interviews, Review Workshop, Additional Tours to Observe Technology and Classroom Diversity

Workshop/TASK 3

Review of Data Sets, and Survey Findings, Technology and Peer Review, Scenario Review and Discussion Workshop.

Workshop/TASK 4

Develop Recommendations, Present Conclusions and Review Draft Document


June 201419


Each task was preceded by preparation, data analysis, and collaboration with the campus to ensure focused, productive, and relevant workshops. Each task culminated in an intensive multi-day series of sessions composed of workshops, interviews, case study presentations, facility tours and peer information review and/or summary meetings. The workshops offered a range of interaction opportunities and engagement styles to allow collaboration among a variety of campus stakeholders.

In addition to the workshop process, the study included:

• Facilitated brainstorming session with the task force• Individual interviews with leadership representatives from all of the Colleges

of the University• A faculty and student on-line Survey• Facility tours and discussions• Data gathering, confirmation and evaluation

Figure 2-01: Learning Space Assessment Report ScheduleThis calendar chart indicates the process and schedule for developing the Learning Space Assessment Report. The process is structured around four, multi-day, on-cam-pus workshops and supplemented with tours, follow-up conference calls and data exchanges between UW Task Force Mem-bers and the consultant team beginning in Fall 2013 and delivering the final report Spring 2014.


June 201420



June 2014

21

3.0 Context and Physical Attributes

3.1 Overview

In this section, issues related to the campus and classroom context and physical attributes are mapped and evaluated.

The physical context of a University creates both opportunities and constraints that inform the distribution and arrangement of facilities, transportation modes and ultimately the campus organization as a whole. Additionally, the physical configuration and condition of campus facilities inform the adaptability, flexibility and quality of learning space environments while also having the potential to limit the application and variety of pedagogical approaches that can be accommodated.

In order to understand the current campus context and conditions, a number of campus attributes have been quantified and mapped. The attributes include arrive points for major public transportation modes, locations of current residence halls, locations of the various Colleges, perceived campus zones and the location and capacity of the general purpose learning spaces.

To address issues related to proximity, maps with 5-minute walk radii from major transit stops and residence halls illustrate which buildings provide the greatest ease of access and which are currently outliers. Additional maps illustrate the distribution of classroom types and seating capacities to provide an insight into where current student learning space densities are located and how they relate to each other and other campus amenities. Accompanying the maps are bar graphs of the data used to develop the maps. The graphs provide a detailed summary of the data and offer a way to draw connections between data sets and illustrate the overall averages of the data.

As important as understanding the location of learning spaces may be, understanding the current condition and use of the spaces is also critical. To evaluate each classroom space, a rating system for each of the current general purpose learning spaces on campus was developed utilizing established industry benchmarks. The benchmarks create targets or optimal evaluation goals for the various characteristics.

Utilizing data provided by the University, the team compiled the statistical information into categories that defined a set of learning space characteristics that included: the number of seats divided by the square footage of the classroom (Seats/SF), the hours of utilization, percentage of seats occupied and an additional factor to address the presence and state of technology in the learning space.



June 2014

22


The compiled data produces a summary ranking of all current learning spaces. The ranking summary is formatted in a familiar ‘consumer report’ style to illustrate the evaluation. It is acknowledged that this approach is purely quantitative and that qualitative aspects of learning spaces also play an important role in what might be considered a ‘good’ or successful learning space. To address the qualitative aspects, the team visited a number of the classrooms that scored at the top, middle and bottom of the rankings. The list of rooms visited was further refined with input from a faculty survey, CTE and overall distribution of the spaces across campus. The evaluation is not exhaustive nor meant to identify particular actions for the spaces, but rather provides an additional insight into the condition and characteristics of current spaces on campus. This section highlights the findings and rankings developed. All supporting data are provided in the appendix section of the report.

3.2 Bus Access

Access to the campus via Metro Bus lines provides a critical transportation option utilized by students, faculty and staff. A large number of routes currently serve the campus and provide stops both immediately adjacent to and on campus, typically along 15th Avenue, Campus Parkway and Stevens Way.

Figure 3-01: 5-minute walk radii around Major Bus StopsMajor bus stop locations are dispersed across the campus. The map below illustrates a 5-minute walk (1/4 mile) extending from the major bus stop locations. The areas of the map that are within the walking radii indicate adequate accessibility from the stop locations to the campus.


June 2014

23


Diagramming the bus stop locations served by more than 12 individual routes demonstrates that access to the majority of the facilities that house learning spaces is good and typically within a 5 minute walk (Figure 3-01). This suggests that access to adequate bus transportation is not a significant constraint to the current state or future planning opportunities related to learning space distribution.

3.3 Light Rail Access

Although not currently operating, Sound Transit will open an extension of the current Link Light Rail system providing service to the campus from downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill and areas north of the campus. This extended public transportation system introduces a significant new transportation mode option to faculty, students and staff and will likely alter current arrival patterns on campus. Mapping the access points into the light rail system tunnels and comparing them with major current bus service stops indicates that this new transportation option will alter the way in which large numbers of campus users reach the University and access the campus facilities. Of particular note, the mapping indicates that the majority of the classroom facilities will be outside a 5 minute walk. This significant new arrival option should be considered when new or renovated facilities are being considered.

Figure 3-02: 5-minute walk radii around Light Rail StationsThis map indicates the Link Light Rail stations in relationship to the campus. A 5-minute walk (1/4 mile) extending from the stations shows the accessibility of the campus from the new transportation mode option. Majority of the classroom facilities are outside a 5-minute walk. The relationship of these stations should be considered when determining new or renovated facilities.


June 2014

24


3.4 Residence Halls

The University has a significant population of students that utilize residence halls on and adjacent to campus. Mapping these facilities illustrates that most of the undergraduate focused residence halls provide reasonable access to a large number of the campus facilities indicating acceptable access and that there is not a significant barrier to how new or renovated learning space facilities would be planned or prioritized.

The mapping takes into account the significant development and redevelopment of residence halls along Campus Parkway and the Burke Gilman Trail. Unknown at the time of the study is the impact of the residence hall master plan effort reviewing the needs located to the north side of campus.

Figure 3-03: 5-minute walk radii around Residential HallsThis map indicates the location of the existing residence halls on campus and the significant development and redevelopment of residence halls along Campus Parkway and the Burke Gilman Trail. A 5-minute walk (1/4 mile) extending from the residence halls indicates that most undergraduate focused residence halls provide reasonable access to a large number of the campus facilities and buildings.


June 2014

25


3.5 Campus Zones

Although not formally defined, the campus has a number of perceived zones. How or if these zones inform the assignment of classrooms is unclear but there may be an advantage if courses are assigned based on likely pairings by students or if taught by the same faculty to support easy transfers between classes. The classroom spaces in the Southwest and portions of the Northwest Zones pose a particular challenge if a student or faculty member must move between those Zones and others, such as the Southeast, within a limited time window. Should zone classification play a bigger role in scheduling as a way to improved utilization rates or should pass times be extended to allow transfer times among the Zones?

Figure 3-04: Buildings by Campus ZonesThis map indicates the designation of facilities based on campus zones. Faculty and students needing to travel to classrooms in different zones may have difficulty with transfer times.


June 2014

26


Figure 3-06: Health Sciences Zone • Separated from the rest of campus by

Pacific Street with limited, elevated pedestrian crossing points

• Inwardly focused facilities

Figure 3-05: Southeast/Southwest Zones• Mix of newer facilities, teaching labs

and older, traditional facilities• Shared by the Colleges of Engineering

and Arts and Sciences• Central location with good paths and

connections capable of supporting large numbers of students

• Iconic campus spaces and view

Figure 3-07: Northeast Zones• Arts and Sciences focus • Older, traditional facilities being

upgraded/renovated as part of ‘restore the core’ effort

• Iconic campus spaces


June 2014

27


3.6 Learning Space Seating Density

The number of seats for a particular learning space type by building, indicates the density of seats of the type. For the purpose of this study, learning spaces have been separated into three categories: classroom style seating, auditorium seating, and seminar and ‘other’ types of seating. Figures 3-08 to Figures 3-14 indicate the number of seats for each building, based on a compilation of data provided by multiple sources at UW. Omissions in the data is the result of oversight in the source database.

Classroom Style Seating Density

Representing the largest number of learning spaces on campus, a mapping of classroom seating densities by building indicates that classroom seats are broadly distributed and largely centered around the upper campus major spaces. Major deviations are seen with the extreme westerly location of Condon Hall and the Fisheries facilities. Condon Hall has recently served as a surge space facility, and if mapped with the residence halls along Campus Parkway, the location might seem less of an outlier. But any expectation that students and faculty could travel from Condon or the Fisheries facilities to other areas of the campus in a 10 minute pass time is questionable. 15th Avenue NE is a significant barrier - physically and psychologically - and anything to the west is perceived as being off campus. This suggests that until a greater density of learning spaces is developed west of 15th, new or renovated spaces might best be located East of 15th.


June 2014

28


Figure 3-08: Number of Classroom Style Seats by BuildingThis graph ranks the buildings based on total seat count. (Excludes auditoria, seminar, and ‘other’ types.)(Data Source: UW Registrar data)


June 2014

29


Figure 3-09: Classroom Style Seating Density by Building and TypeMapping of the seats by building.(Data Source: UW Registrar data)


June 2014

30


Auditorium Seating Density

The total number of auditorium seats on campus is only slightly less than the total number of classroom seats and are likewise distributed across the campus broadly with Kane Hall and the Health Sciences containing the greatest densities and number of rooms.

Figure 3-10: Number of Auditorium Seats by BuildingThis graph ranks the buildings based on total seat count. (Excludes classroom style, seminar, and ‘other’ types.)(Data Source: UW Registrar data)


June 2014

31


Figure 3-11: Auditorium Style Seating Density by Building and TypeMapping of seats by building.(Data Source: UW Registrar data)


June 2014

32


Seminar and ‘Other’ Types of Seating Density

Seminar, conference and active learning spaces make-up a minority of the general purpose learning spaces available on campus.

The ‘other’ category of learning spaces encompasses Active Learning spaces. This emerging space type has recently been introduced to the campus as part of a recent facility renovation and recent information indicates that the demand for this room type is strong and not adequately met withe the 2 rooms currently available.

Reference the faculty survey data that appears later in the report for additional information.

Figure 3-12: Seminar, Conference, and Active Learning Style Seating Density by BuildingThis graph ranks the buildings based on total seat count. (Excludes classroom style and auditoria.)(Data Source: UW Registrar data)


June 2014

33


Figure 3-13: Seminar Seating Density by Building and TypeMapping of seats by building.(Data Source: UW Registrar data)

Figure 3-14: Density of Other Types of Seats by Building and TypeMapping of seats by building.(Data Source: UW Registrar data)

Conference

Active Learning


June 2014

34


Summary of Learning Space Seating Densities

Combining the seating density by type data and overlaying travel distance information illustrates only a handful of buildings are outliers and demonstrates that the majority of buildings are located within the reasonable 5 minute walk for at least one of the characteristics mapped. This illustration may provide a useful guide as building renovation priorities are developed. Supporting and prioritizing buildings that support easy transitions between classes offer both faculty and students advantages and address expressed concerns about the current required travel distances.

Figure 3-15: Number of Seats by BuildingThis graph ranks the buildings based on total seat count in all seating style categories and illustrates relationships to adjacent transportation and housing amenities.(Data Source: UW Registrar data)


June 2014

35


3.7 Classroom Sizing - Square Feet/Seat

The actual space (square feet or SF) provided in each learning space for each student or seat is an important physical characteristic. This factor, expressed as SF/seat, offers an insight into a room’s functional fit with a seating type and desired pedagogy. Generally speaking, a fixed seat space can support a greater density of seats. A dense, fixed seat configuration (typical of an auditorium), however, minimizes a room’s flexibility and would be inappropriate for some teaching methodologies. Current learning space trends are shifting the SF/seat factor upwards to allow movable tables and chairs to be accommodated, allowing easy reconfiguration and a diversity of pedagogies.

Accessibility is an important factor to consider when evaluating appropriate SF/seat factors. Providing access to all seating and presentation locations within the room - including appropriate pathways and across all classroom styles - requires the allocation of additional SF/Seat and often requires specifics solutions that exceed typical assumptions. Accessibility should be carefully accounted for in both new, refurbished and renovated facilities.

Building codes play a role in determining room requirements as the required number of exits, occupancy classifications and other factors vary depending on the room specifics such as seating type and count, layout and configuration options, and the location within the building. Current building codes should be carefully reviewed and accounted for in both new, refurbished and renovated facilities.

Utilizing campus provided data, the SF/seat was graphed for each building providing an overall campus average of 18.7 SF/seat. As an overall average, this figure is somewhat low and certainly very low if the desired learning space model is identified as requiring flexibility and moving towards a more active learning space model.


June 2014

36


Figure 3-16: Average Square Foot per Seat by BuildingThis graph illustrates the average number of square feet per seat and highlights the campus average of 18.7 SF/seat.(Data Source: UW Registrar)


June 2014

37


3.8 Consumer Report Style Room Evaluation

To provide an overall evaluation of the general purpose classrooms on campus, a tool was developed that would allow quantitative assessment based on campus provided data. The result is a graphic format that allows a charting of the room statistics and data relative to target standards and optimal ratios. Available data allowed the evaluation to consider the SF/seat, the percentage of seats occupied, and percentage of available hours the classroom was occupied during the Fall Quarter of 2013. Additionally, the age and type of technology in each room was evaluated. Charts illustrating the key for the mapping of the consumer report style rankings are included in the appendix.

Classroom Utilization - SF/SeatAll classroom spaces have been evaluated and scored based on how close the room comes to meeting the optimal SF/seat figure for the various classroom types - auditoriums (16 SF/seat) have a different factor than a more active learning type space (35 SF/seat). In the scoring, the farther from the optimal factor the lower the ranking. The ranking system has been designed to identify if the room is over or under the factor and generally by how much - resulting in a pyramid shaped scoring chart. It is important to understand how the room scores, as a room that is oversized can be as problematic as a room that is too small and indicates that the capacity of the room should be evaluated.

Classroom Utilization - Percentage of Hours OccupiedAll classroom spaces have been evaluated and scored based on how close the room comes to meeting the optimal percentage of hours occupied - 67%. The percentage occupied figure does not vary based on classroom type. The scoring system follows the same above/below scoring as for the SF/seat and creates its own pyramid scoring chart. Again, it is important to understand if a room is overused or underutilized. Over-utilization of a room - above 67% - impacts the class change timing and limits the ability for the room to be maintained. Classrooms with utilization rates at 67% are considered fully utilized.

The planning goal is to schedule general-purpose classrooms 67% of available hours within the scheduling window. This utilization target was determined as a result of analyses conducted by a number of leading higher education facilities agencies, and is widely accepted as an efficient utilization factor. The primary reason for this goal is that a perfect “match” between available classroom capacities and course section enrollments cannot always be made in every time period. Classroom capacity, course enrollment, seat configuration, technology, and other amenities impact demand and availability. The two-thirds utilization rate enables scheduling flexibility, permits access for maintenance, and allows for ad hoc use, such as special events.

Classroom Utilization - Percentage of Seats OccupiedAll classroom spaces have been evaluated and scored based on how close the room comes to meeting the optimal percentage of seats occupied. Two factors are provided for percent occupied, as larger rooms can tolerate higher occupancy rates. The scoring system follows the same above/below scoring and creates its own pyramid scoring chart.


June 2014

38


Classroom TechnologyAll classroom spaces have been evaluated and scored based on the age and type of technology, if any, in the room.

Combining the scores together produces an overall room score allowing all spaces to be ranked based on the quantitative data sets. The full listing of all rooms is provided in the appendix. Figure 3-17 presents the top and bottom ranked rooms by Campus Zone.

Figure 3-17: Consumer Report Style Ranking of Top and Bottom Rooms by Campus ZoneThis chart illustrates the consumer report style ranking.(Data Source: ZGF and Rickes Associates Analysis)

ZONE KEY

LEGEND


June 2014

39


Figure 3-18: Consumer Report Style Ranking of Overall Top, Middle, and Bottom Ranked RoomsThis chart illustrates the consumer report style ranking.(Data Source: ZGF and Rickes Associates Analysis)


June 2014

40


3.9 Learning Space ‘Right-Sizing’

Looking in greater detail at individual spaces, a number of the current learning spaces appear to be accommodating class sizes that are larger than would be optimal for the space - the SF/seat is too low resulting in rooms that will feel cramped, have compromised views, fail to meet accessibility requirements and have overburdened HVAC systems. One solution to this condition is often referred to as ‘right-sizing’. Right-sizing can be achieved by either reducing the number of seats in the space or expanding the room to achieve a higher and recommended SF/seat.

Reviewing the SF/seat data and quantitatively adjusting rooms to meet an optimal SF/seat factor reveals that the capacity assigned to a number of rooms would need to be adjusted down to ‘right-size’ the spaces. This step would have the result of improving the quantitative room score and thus its ranking, but would reduce the overall number of seats available on campus - see highlighted room below (BAG 108).

The right-sizing exercise is hypothetical and, when completed at this level, highly quantitative. For rooms with fixed seating, it is assumed that the number of seats remains constant. Rooms with movable seating have been right-sized with the assumption that seats could be added or removed. In some instances, there are qualitative circumstances such as movable seats and fixed tables that would require additional consideration regarding the optimal number of seats. In practice, each classroom would be considered in this way to determine the ideal number of seats.University of Washington Current and Right-Sized Seat Count

Detail by Room

Main Campus Health Sciences Campus

Building Room

Fixed or Movable

(F/M)Seats

CurrentSeats

Right-SizedSeats Building Room

Fixed or Movable

(F/M)Seats

CurrentSeats

Right-SizedSeats

MAR 168 M 20 22 HSA A420 F 482 482AND 008 M 45 30 HSB BB1404 M 30 21AND 010 M 45 31 HSB BB1602 M 32 21AND 223 F 160 160 HSD D209 F 168 168ARC 147 F 305 305 HSE E212 M 20 16ARC 160 M 55 67 HSE E214 M 16 20ARC G070 M 45 53 HSE E216 M 30 23ART 003 F 65 65 HSI I132 M 30 36ART 004 F 25 25 HSK K069 F 94 94ART 006 F 25 25 HSR RR134 F 50 50ART 317 F 40 40 HST T359 M 30 19BAG 106 M 25 18 HST T360 M 25 19BAG 108 M 30 19 HST T360A M 16 19BAG 131 F 290 290 HST T435 F 185 185BAG 154 F 120 120 HST T439 F 229 229BAG 260 F 80 80 HST T473 M 50 39BAG 261 F 80 80 HST T474 M 25 19BAG 331A M 30 19 HST T474A M 16 19BLD 286 M 30 19 HST T478 M 35 38BLD 392 M 30 19 HST T480 M 10 11BNS 115 M 35 23 HST T498 M 25 25BNS 117 M 50 36 HST T530 M 30 37BNS 203 M 35 25 HST T531 M 50 37CDH 101 F 45 45 HST T625 F 185 185CDH 105 F 45 45 HST T635 M 35 22CDH 109 F 155 155 HST T639 F 117 117CDH 110A M 50 32 HST T733 F 118 118CDH 110B M 50 34 HST T739 F 121 121CDH 115 M 50 37 HST T747 F 117 117CDH 125 M 40 35 SOCC 222 M 12 13CDH 128 M 30 21 SOCC 224 M 20 17CDH 135 F 65 65 SOCC 228 M 10 11CDH 139 F 70 70 SOCC 254 M 26 29CDH 141 M 25 20 SOCC 303 M 55 53CDH 223A M 30 22 SOCC 308 M 32 26CDH 223B M 40 29 SOCC 309 M 20 17CDH 223C M 40 29 SOCC 316 M 120 119CHL 015 M 50 30 SOCC 322 M 20 22CHL 101 M 30 19 SOCC 342 M 12 19CHL 105 M 25 18 SOCC 346 M 12 19CLK 120 M 25 30 SOCC 348 M 21 19CLK 219 M 30 42 SOCC 350 M 21 19CLK 316 M 25 35 SOCC 354 M 26 30CMU 120 F 95 95CMU 226 M 50 36CMU 228 M 35 23CMU 230 M 55 37CMU 243 M 30 19CMU 326 M 45 33CMU B006 M 45 33DEM 002 M 40 45DEM 004 F 50 50DEM 012 F 50 50DEM 024 F 50 50

DRAFT April 2014

Figure 3-19: Sample Chart of Rooms with Current and Right-sized DataThis sample chart shows the room’s current and right-sized seat counts. Highlighted is a room that illustrates how right-sizing a room decreases capacity.(Data Source: Rickes Associates Analysis)


June 2014

41


3.10 Individual Room Qualitative Evaluation

Qualitative assessments of a limited number of classrooms were made in April 2014 to provide additional insight into the current classroom stock and to test the results from the quantitative analysis. Additionally, the room visits allowed the faculty survey preferences to be applied.

The selection of the rooms to be visited began with the quantitative summary evaluation chart. From this chart, the top, middle and bottom ranked rooms were sorted to eliminate more than one room from any one building. Then the list was further sorted to capture both Health Sciences and Upper Campus spaces. Further sorting captured the results of the faculty survey and input from other campus groups.

On the following pages, photographs of the visited rooms are accompanied when appropriate by the quantitative ranking, faculty scoring along with highlighted room characteristics.


June 2014

42


Figure 3-20: GLD 435Quantitative Evaluation• High-level ranking Faculty Survey• Not mentioned by respondentsQualitative Evaluation• Appropriate room proportions• Excellent access to daylight, views• Room condition and materials

are new, appropriate and provide flexibility

• Technology and lighting are contemporary

Figure 3-21: EEB 003Quantitative Evaluation• High-level ranking Faculty Survey• Among least favorite buildingsQualitative Evaluation• Low CTE ranking• Hard to find location• Windowless with columns that may

cause obstructed view angles• Fixed tiered seating limits flexibility• Power provided at desks

Figure 3-22: JHN 102Quantitative Evaluation• High-level ranking Faculty Survey• Among favorite classrooms; among

least favorite buildingsQualitative Evaluation• High CTE ranking• Fixed, auditorium seating limits

flexibility• Good room access• Finishes and technology are

contemporary and appropriate


June 2014

43


Figure 3-23: JHN 175Quantitative Evaluation• High-level ranking Faculty Survey• Top ranked room; Very low ranked

buildingQualitative Evaluation• High CTE ranking• Access to natural light and ventilation• Finishes and Furniture showing wear

and age• Audible buzz in the room

Figure 3-24: BLD 286 Quantitative Evaluation• Mid-level ranking Faculty Survey• Not mentioned by respondentsQualitative Evaluation• Appropriate room proportions• Access to daylight• Limited/no technology• Old and tired flexible furniture• Old and tired finishes

Figure 3-25: E214 Health SciencesQuantitative Evaluation• Mid-level ranking Faculty Survey• Among lowest ranked buildingsQualitative Evaluation• No access to daylight, views etc.• Chalk boards v. white boards• Flexible tables and chairs• Old and tired finishes


June 2014

44


Figure 3-27: SCC 222Quantitative Evaluation• Low-level ranking Faculty Survey• Among least favorite buildingsQualitative Evaluation • Appears recently renovated• Good, informal learning spaces

adjacent with views• Location makes access for most

difficult/distant

Figure 3-28: FTR 032Quantitative Evaluation• Low-level ranking Faculty Survey• Not mentioned by respondentsQualitative Evaluation• No built-in technology• Access is down a vehicular drive • Basement location with no natural

light, poor ventilation• Outdated furniture• Finishes show water damage; tired

and bland

Figure 3-26: EEB 026Quantitative Evaluation• Mid-level ranking Faculty Survey• Among least favorite buildingsQualitative Evaluation• Low CTE ranking• Awkward room proportions producing

compromised sightlines• Hard to find basement location• Room condition and materials are

good but furniture lacks comfort


June 2014

45


3.11 New, Renovation, and Refurbishment Costs

The study evaluated three alternative cost planning approaches that could be used to address learning space upgrade needs: new construction, renovation and refurbishment. All of the cost profiles described exclude the technology equipment cost associated with each of the options, as it is anticipated that those costs would be addressed by a specific and separate technology refresh budget.

New construction is the most costly option, but offers many opportunities. New construction allows a facility that optimizes room sizes, configuration and adjacencies with teaching pedagogies, informal learning spaces and other support features. The cost range indicated does not include site and other utility costs as those expenses fall outside a range that is predictable due to the high degree of variability among sites. The costs are intended to represent a facility built on the UW campus and of a relative quality that is comparable to other recent new facilities on campus.

Renovation costs are similar to new construction largely due to the fact that the extent of the work is comprehensive and would include completely new mechanical electrical and plumbing systems, restrooms etc. Additionally, all accessibility issues would be resolved and the building envelope, including the roof, would be brought into compliance with current energy codes. This option offers a way to preserve existing buildings while creating otherwise contemporary space and support infrastructure. This option often results in varying degrees of compromise - the floor to floor space may not support the desired ceiling heights, the column grids may create view obstructions, etc. Renovations require some program flexibility as the building exterior is assumed to be fixed. A combination of renovation and additions of new construction can offer additional alternatives.

Extent of Building Construction

Building Size in GSF

Estimated Building Cost, $ per SF**

Building Renovation* 60,000 $350-425 21,000,000$ - 25,500,000$

New Construction 60,000 $450-500 27,000,000$ - 30,000,000$

* Building Renovation includes: upgrade of structural systems, ADA accessibility, mechanical upgrades, Engery Code requirements, and room finishes.** Cost estimates assume May 2014 USD construction cost, not project cost.

Estimated Total Building Cost

Figure 3-29: Estimated Building Renovation and New Construction CostsComparison of relative construction costs for a fully renovated facility v. new construction. The cost of furniture is excluded but could be added at a rate between $25-35/GSF.(Data Source: JMB Consulting Group LLC)

Refurbishment is the most economical approach and can be executed on a room by room basis. While the ability to address individual rooms may be an advantage, this approach includes only the most minimal opportunity to address underlying issues that may exist in a learning space. This approach is truly a ‘new finishes’ option. Significant ADA issues may not be able to be addressed, room size is fixed and the mechanical system is left untouched. The cost range outlined includes a ‘typical’ classroom and a premium for spaces often associated with the increased infrastructure needs of ‘active learning’ spaces.


June 2014

46


Campus ParameterRequired Number of

Refurbishment Rooms, per year

Total SF of Refurbishment Rooms,

per year*

Upper Campus, Current Scheduling

44 66,000 4,950,000$ - 6,930,000$

HSC, Current Scheduling

7 10,500 787,500$ - 1,102,500$

UW Seattle Combined, Current Scheduling

51 76,500 5,737,500$ - 8,032,500$

Upper Campus, 15min Pass & 50 hour week

37 55,500 4,162,500$ - 5,827,500$

HSC, 15 min Pass & 50 hour week

3 4,500 337,500$ - 472,500$

UW Seattle Combined Optimal Scheduling

40 60,000 4,500,000$ - 6,300,000$

** Refurbishment Room Cost range based on May 2014 USD; if being converted to an active learning space, cost would be closer to $225/SF.

Estimated Total Refurbishment Room Cost, per year ($75/SF -

$105/SF)**

* Refurbishment Room SF is an estimate average of 1500 SF per room. Room refurbishment of existing classroom includes: walls, floor, and ceiling finishes ONLY, minor MEP relocations, and new lighting.

Figure 3-30: Estimated Room Refurbishment CostsSuggested possible refurbishment cost ranges based on a series of scenarios - the scenarios are the same as those explored later in the report as part of the review of costs associated with technology upgrades. Note the cost to refurbish existing spaces into active learning spaces is significantly more as illustrated in the column to the far right. The cost of furniture is excluded but could be added at a rate between $25-35/GSF.(Data Source: JMB Consulting Group LLC)

Analysis of the projected annual costs associated with a refurbishment approach follows the same set of options utilized by the technology cost analysis - see Section 6. Whereas the technology cost analysis is based on an average cost per room, the refurbishment cost model utilized an average size room of 1,500 SF, which is a calculated average for the campus. This figure was then multiplied by the number of rooms to be refurbished to set an annual quantity of square feet to be refurbished.

The analysis indicates that the refurbishment cost associated with the current classroom inventory, and aligned with the technology refresh rate, gives a projected annual cost between $5,737,500 - $8,032,500. If scheduling efficiencies employed, the cost could be reduced to $4,500,000 and $6,300,000 annually, a savings of between $1,237,000 and $1,737,500 per year.

It is important to note that the cost assumptions utilized do not account for cost premiums often associated with the development of active learning style spaces due to enhanced technology infrastructure requirements. If an active learning space is anticipated, the cost for that portion of the refurbishment could be anticipated to be $225/SF.

Furniture is not included in the cost analysis tables above. An allowance of $25-35/GSF should be allocated to address the costs associated with furniture (tables, chairs, desks, etc.) for new, renovated or refurbished classrooms.

OPTI

ON 1

OPTI

ON 2

June 2014

47

University of Washington / Learning Space Assessment 4.0 Observations

4.1 Overview

In order to gain a qualitative perspective to complement the quantitative analysis, the team participated in several meetings with the Task Force to understand goals, test ideas, and gather feedback. Through these workshops, three overarching themes emerged to help frame the classroom study: teaching, scheduling, and allocating. Observations, findings, and recommendations were organized under these categories during Task Force workshops and are also reflected throughout the report.

Another key element in this phase was to engage the stakeholders, including faculty, administrators in academic departments, and staff in units directly related to classrooms, through interviews and focus groups. An on-line survey was distributed to all faculty members. Student feedback was obtained through a separate survey as described later in this section. A peer comparison and benchmarking study was also conducted to highlight classroom-related policies and procedures that are currently in place on other university campuses.

This chapter summarizes findings and observations from these activities.

4.2 Interview Summary

Interviews occurred over the course of multiple days during two campus visits in November 2013. A representative from each School/College or administrative unit was invited to participate in a meeting related to campus classrooms and included key members of their team. From the academic groups, a variety of roles were represented, including Deans, faculty members, and administrators.

The general findings from the interviews and focus groups are presented as a thematic summary. It is important to note that this summary reflects the feedback and opinions of the interviewees, rather than the results of the quantitative analyses, discussed later. Interview groups including attendee lists are presented in the Appendix.

Teaching

A need for basic amenities and technology in the classroom was echoed across many interviews with the UW’s faculty and administrators. Key elements included a reliable technology interface that is common to each classroom and flexible furniture that supports collaboration and different teaching modalities, such as performance, presentation, discussion, and group work. Rooms should be comfortable, well-lit, and have clear sightlines. A general sense of

4.0 Observations

June 2014

48


the inadequacy of the University’s classroom stock is reflected by faculty and students alike. “The classroom” is commonly identified as “the most distracting thing about the learning experience” in the University in Office of Educational Assessment evaluations.

The advent of activity-based budgeting (ABB) at the University has led to the combining of course sections and larger course sizes, stressing the capacity of many classrooms, and pushing the enrollment of many courses to a “tipping point” where larger classrooms are needed, and/or rooms that were once adequate are now overcrowded. Exacerbating this disconnect between course section size and available room, the capacities of those rooms that have been reconfigured with new furniture have declined, as more space per seat is typically required to support contemporary teaching pedagogy.

Further, some faculty identified the lack of instructional space as a hindrance to the continued growth of individual academic programs, in that the spaces in which their courses are scheduled, are unable to hold additional students, with no growth space available. Adding to this pressure, many interviewees mentioned an ongoing need for smaller seminar-style rooms, and an abiding need for small group breakout spaces that can work, in conjunction with larger instructional spaces, to support problem-based group learning exercises and project work.

A question shared by several interviewees concerning the growth of online course offerings and how these offerings are supported, and/or potentially alleviate pressure on, the University’s pool of instructional spaces. Approaches to online learning are unique to many of the University’s individual schools and programs, and the efficacy of moving course materials online is a subject currently being discussed at the UW. While it is understood that the ongoing evolution of teaching pedagogy and technological advancement will continue to shift the nature of demand for instructional space, the extent of the effects of these changes is not yet known.

Despite these challenges, many interviewees stressed that the University’s instructional spaces act as the locus of the University’s “community of learners” and are vitally important in how they support student interaction. “Students come to the physical location of the University to be with each other, see, hear, and learn from each other.”

Scheduling

Scheduling policy at the University of Washington has been shaped by a number of influences, ranging from faculty preference to geographic location of departments, to physical distance. Many interviewees felt that these practices should be revisited in order to enhance utilization of the University’s current classroom stock.

One overarching theme heard in many interviews was the lack of standard time blocks across the University, with many unique time blocks for individual Colleges/Schools and disciplines. As a corollary to this issue, many felt that current practices are too tailored to the needs of individual faculty members and departments, instead of being focused on the needs and preferences of students. Some interviewees perceived preferential treatment in the scheduling of individual rooms, due to proximity to departmental offices and other factors,

June 2014

49


and that classrooms are not assigned fairly across the University.A plurality of stakeholders felt that the current pass time between classes (10 minutes) is inadequate. Not only is it insufficient to traverse longer distances on the UW campus, it also leaves insufficient time for the set-up and breakdown of classroom technology, as well as informal conversations between faculty and students before and after class. Of particular concern is the ability to commute between courses held on the Health Sciences campus and those held on the Upper Campus. Several buildings on the Health Sciences campus are frequently utilized as overflow space for courses that cannot be accommodated on the Upper Campus, but whose locations are unpopular due to distance.

In terms of the relationship between Health Sciences and the Upper Campus, several interview groups (including many representing various Health Sciences disciplines), expressed a desire for greater coordination between scheduling practices of the two campuses. At present, current scheduling practices differ, substantially due to the unique curriculum and off-campus component of the Health Sciences programs. This would challenge the flexibility that currently exists and allows Health Sciences to coordinate the diverse schedules of the curricula.

The University’s current quarter system deserves attention, according to many who felt that a semester system would increase efficiency. One potential pitfall of the adoption of a semester system, however, would be the controversy, that it would be expected to generate with faculty whose current teaching loads typically permit one quarter, per academic year, without teaching obligations. Another perceived disadvantage would be a reduction in the number and variety of courses available over the course of the academic year.

Allocating

Lack of consistent classroom condition standards within the UW’s pool of general-purpose classrooms was cited as a significant issue facing the University. Multiple stakeholders indicated that the first step to rectifying this was addressing “low-hanging fruit,” by uniformly increasing the desirability of the general-purpose classroom pool by offering an incentive during a potential transition to new scheduling practices and policies. Following that, prioritization of renovations and upgrades can provide quantitative evidence for planning and its benefits.

The appointment of a classroom committee, made up of stakeholders from various University constituencies, would develop priorities for updates, inclusive of technology, physical infrastructure, and furniture. The development of a “Consumer Reports” ranking matrix by classroom would facilitate identification of classrooms that need particular upgrades.

June 2014

50


4.3 Task Force Workshop Summary

As part of the commitment to engage administrators in framing key questions driving the development of recommendations relating to the assessment of learning spaces at the University of Washington (UW), the team led a workshop at the UW campus over the course of a day on November 7th, 2013. The workshop was attended by approximately 15 faculty and administrators serving on the steering committee, as well as representatives from Rickes Associates (RA) and Zimmer Gunsul Frasca (ZGF). Vantage, the third member of the project team, participated in the majority of subsequent interviews and workshops held at the UW.

Informed by issues raised by the project’s steering committee during the on-campus kickoff earlier in the fall, several questions were presented and organized by the three major topics that are woven throughout this project: teaching, scheduling, and allocating. During each 30-minute discussion, attendees were divided into three groups and tasked with answering two of six sub-questions nested within the topic being discussed. The group then reconvened, and answers from all six questions were shared, discussed, and recorded. The themes summarized herein reflect the opinions of the group in the aggregate.

Collaboration and “ownership” were critical to understanding the desires and goals of the steering committee, and ultimately, for the successful implementation of final recommendations. The workshop was planned to increase the transparency of the process, gain valuable insight, and strengthen the relationship with and support of the steering committee.

The remainder of this section represents the specific questions posed to the Task Force Committee members during the workshop and a summary of the ideas and feedback generated during that session. The intent of this workshop was to brainstorm, provide feedback, and develop initial thoughts relative to the topics presented. The following summary reflects the ideas and viewpoints from the workshop session, rather than actual recommendations of the team.

Teaching

The following summary presents the discussion questions and feedback from Task Force members. This does not serve as quantitative or qualitative findings of analyses, but rather a reflection of the Task Force members viewpoints in the early phase of the study.

The experience of teaching is changing from all angles, reflecting the technological, cultural, pedagogical, and physical shifts that are occurring in higher education. Discussions during the first segment of the workshop focused on the pace and breadth of such changes, impacts felt at the University of Washington, and requirements necessary to appropriately accommodate change.

June 2014

51


What technological, cultural, and pedagogical changes is the University of Washington experiencing, and which ones are foreseen in the future (e.g., hybrid courses, MOOCs, “flipped” learning)?

A variety of interconnected changes are impacting course instruction at the University of Washington, affecting content delivery as well as the type of physical space needed to support an increasingly mobile, networked community of learners.

The virtual “space” of networked technology itself is absorbing some of the roles traditionally played by physical instructional spaces, in some cases substituting for classroom space entirely. This is reflected in the widespread growth of hybrid course offerings at the University. These combine in-person lecture and seminar sessions with virtual content, and utilize a variety of formal and informal instructional spaces.

The overarching potential for mobility and flexibility driven by network technologies and personal computing devices suggests the need for physical spaces that enhance and sustain mobility and flexibility. To support technological change, instructional spaces, both formal and informal, need to become “points of contact” that are reconfigurable, conveniently located, and outfitted with appropriate technology.

One issue concerning the ongoing transformation of instructional space spurred by technological innovation is the timeframe for providing updates to spaces, especially given the fluid and ongoing nature of tech updates.

What learning space types are seen as obsolete? Which ones are seen as innovative or forward-thinking?

Inflexibility—both technological and physical—is the chief reason identified in discussions regarding the obsolescence of spaces at the University of Washington. Especially, in light of major technological advances, and associated cultural and pedagogical disruption, the static arrangement of learning spaces at the University is increasingly seen as a hindrance. Programmatically, physically, and technologically, removing the barriers that limit the space of learning will permit new collaborations and interdisciplinary work, enabling the University to broaden its ability to “bring the world into the classroom.”

June 2014

52


Are there particular characteristics/policies/priorities specific to the UW that would inform instructional space need? Are there particular functional or qualitative characteristics that would underpin a “consistent Washington-specific classroom quality”?

Attributes contributing to a baseline suite of technology that were identified include, but are not necessarily limited to:

- Support for mobile devices - Adequate power for devices - Data projector - Interface to annotate w/projection - Document camera - Audio/amplification - Permanent computer for instructor/cloud-based - Clickers - Flexible furniture - Sight lines - Flexible configuration – no “monuments” - Noise control - Temperature control - Appropriate square feet/seat

It is understood that a selected subset of these characteristics may be more appropriate in certain instructional space types and configurations than others, and are dependent on other factors, such as available technological infrastructure, building age, room configuration, and funding. Others, such as the need for clear sight lines and temperature controls, may be considered universal needs.

How does “resilience” inform needs related to learning space infrastructure at the UW? How can spaces and technologies be made more resilient?

To ensure a high degree of resilience relating to the learning space infrastructure of the UW, consistency is necessary in several arenas: equipment across classrooms and classroom types; a streamlined interface that permits interchangeability; WiFi strength and coverage; and classroom support for student tech devices and equipment. Extension, accommodation, and maintenance of the University’s technological infrastructure are critical to supporting the University’s overall resilience.

Policies and procedures concerning resilience are already in place for non-teaching spaces of the University and should be extended to the use of the instructional spaces. As part of that effort, developing protocols and prioritizing spaces to be reopened in case of interruption are of central importance.

What locations on the UW campus are seen as “prime” for learning spaces? Are there locations that are seen as providing the opportunity for greatest efficiency and enhancement of the learning environment?

Multiple locations at the center of campus were mentioned as “prime,” including spaces in Mary Gates Hall, the new Active Learning Classrooms in Odegaard, as well as PACCAR and Dempsey Halls. Other spaces seen as having opportunity for greater use include instructional spaces in residence halls and the spaces in the South Campus Center.

June 2014

53


Where and what kinds of informal learning spaces are needed? How can these be integrated with formal learning spaces, both existing and future?

Informal learning spaces play multiple valuable roles in the daily life of the University: they provide breakout space and other support roles for formal instructional spaces; they transform to become work, study, and meeting space for students; and they provide a place for commuter students to “land” when they arrive on campus. Recognizing that more and diverse kinds of these spaces are needed at present, various methods of expanding, accessing, and tracking these spaces and their use has become significant.

Scheduling


Discussion of scheduling dovetails closely with that of teaching, as two key facets of the University’s central mission. The scheduling of the University of Washington’s instructional spaces is necessarily intertwined with the types of spaces needed and the pedagogical structures of the courses offered. The discussion of scheduling practices and needs during the workshop covered a broad range of topics, including current scheduling policies, data management options, and implications of scheduling informal learning spaces.

Should special requests that are not curriculum-driven be accommodated, and how?

Various ways of defining policy concerning special requests for rooms were discussed. Centrally managed and user-driven methods for scheduling (such as Space Scout for informal learning spaces, currently in use at the University), as well as measuring use of different spaces on campus, were discussed. Prioritization based on the type of event and individuals and groups making the request was also discussed.

What limitations or challenges do current UW scheduling practices present (e.g., pass time, scheduling blocks)?

Challenges to UW scheduling practices include non-standardized schedules for many courses, pass time and physical distance, and set perceptions, held by students and faculty alike, about when courses are to occur. Options for incentivizing, rather than forcing, faculty to change the culture of scheduling within individual units that were discussed include offering well-located, high-quality classroom spaces, the use of standard instructional technologies, and the rotation of “prime time” scheduling from department to department, by quarter. The lack of standardization in the UW’s scheduling practices is seen as a significant hindrance to efficient, clear use of instructional space.

June 2014

54


What challenges does the UW face in managing and maintaining data?

With R25, the Registrar’s office currently schedules based on three priorities: proximity, distance, and availability. All course data is loaded into the software first, before scheduling. After this, a second pass addresses the courses and sections that cannot be automatically accommodated by the scheduling software. Current scheduling practices at UW face several challenges:

- Data completeness (room attributes, special requests, classroom technology) - Multiple database for various locations and types of spaces (Upper Campus,

Health Sciences, departmental spaces) - Public perception of poor management caused by challenges and limits to

current approach

What are options for distributing classes throughout the day and week?

While traditional scheduling practices and culture at the University of Washington anecdotally favors 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., four days per week, there may be opportunities to distribute courses to earlier and later times during the day, and to schedule Friday more intensively. Further, student schedules may permit the scheduling of courses at times more convenient to their needs, such as late evening. These scheduling shifts would both require and precipitate shifts in campus culture in order to succeed, however.

How can the role of instructional spaces as a University-wide resource be clarified through policy and practice?

A number of specific approaches can help clarify the role of instructional spaces at the University:

- Asking schools/colleges to prioritize in creation of a policy/set of policies, and whether they currently have any pre-existing policies in place

- Decreasing ad hoc arrangements; cultural shifts vs. faculty autonomy - Utilization of departmentally-owned classroom space - Recognition that policies are not one-size-fits-all, and may need to be

tailored to individual scheduling needs of each discipline, school, or college - Developing incentives for units to use space more efficiently - Aggregating “pools” of classrooms—space for “typical” courses vs. “messy”

ones, experimental spaces vs. traditional spaces - Visibility and awareness: Do faculty know there are policies governing use of

classroom space?

How can the use of informal learning spaces be reflected in scheduling practices?

The University of Washington recognizes there are potential efficiencies to centralized scheduling, policy, and control of informal learning spaces. Recently, the UW began exploring how to better utilize informal learning spaces, reflected in the development of SpaceScout. The Task Force indicated it may be possible to further utilize these spaces for instruction in some situations, providing that policies governing access and scheduling of these spaces can be clarified. This includes opening informal learning spaces to academic departments to hold faculty development workshops and other programs to strengthen curriculum. A goal of assessing and adjusting the fiscal structure for renting informal learning spaces is to reduce the incidences of users “working the system” to have access to these spaces.

June 2014

55


Allocating


How does the UW currently allocate and prioritize the distribution of instructional space and resources?

The UW’s scheduling software, R25, uses an algorithm to balance proximity, distance, and availability in assigning courses to rooms. Manual scheduling of courses that are not accommodated by the algorithm are then addressed, followed by consideration of special requests and changes to initial assignments. The University has four types of instructional spaces:

- 306 general-assignment classrooms between 10 and 720 seats on Upper Campus

- 43 general-assignment classrooms in Health Sciences - Departmental classrooms - Departmental laboratories

According to Task Force members responding to this question, there are two sources for classroom support: biennial budget (consistency of funding is unpredictable) and operational budget (renting space to generate income). While there may be additional or different sources of funding, this reflects the understanding of the committee members at the time of the workshop.

IT upgrades are funded through the biennial budget. Over the past two decades, there have been inadequate resources assigned to IT upgrades. Allocating resources to facility upgrades is a challenge, given physical limitations, the inability to add more space to the emergency power system, and the deficiencies in legacy spaces that already exist. Allocation of resources is further complicated by the rapidly evolving nature of classroom technology offerings themselves, as well as the shift away from fixed resources to a distributed model of mobile resources, including the personal technology devices that students and faculty provide themselves.

What role does geography play in determining allocation of resources, as the campus continues to evolve?

Geography plays an important role in determining allocation of resources, as University administrators strive to provide an equitable distribution of resources across campus. However, various facility needs across Upper Campus and Health Sciences are specific and uneven, making direct comparison between investments across campus difficult.

How are upgrades to instructional technology at the UW funded or prioritized?

Currently, the Teaching and Learning Technology Oversight Committee reviews instructional technology projects to determine priorities. This group does not oversee projects as part of the Student Technology Fee, as this fee excludes instructional technology.

June 2014

56


Centralized Decentralized

Advantages Disadvantages Advantages DisadvantagesSimplicity Political Ground-level

oversightMystery and misperception

Efficiency Loss of flexibility and agility

Consistency Perception of inequity

Greater visibility Difficult to tailor to customer

Managers are most knowledgeable

Unhappiness

All working with same goal

Fewer options with standardization

Perception of equity Culture change

Figure 4-01: Data Management OptionsTask Force Committee members were asked to describe the perceived advantages and disadvantages of a centralized instructional space data management system.(Data Source: Task Force Workshop discussion)

What other drivers influence the allocation of resources? Are there drivers that merit greater attention?

The UW campus is defined by perceived and documented zones that are understood by faculty, students, and staff. Geography influences decisions related to classroom upgrades in an effort to offer an equitable balance of investment across zones. In doing this, the perception of “spreading the wealth” across campus may take precedence over more urgent renovation needs.

What are the advantages and disadvantages to centralized management of instructional space? What are the advantages or disadvantages of decentralized management of instructional space?

The advantages of centralized management of instructional space have an inverse relationship to those of a decentralized system. While a centralized approach brings simplicity, clear governance, and efficiency, it lacks the user-specific understanding that exists with departmental oversight. The advantages and disadvantages for each method were documented during the workshop.

What are the current approaches to assessing “risk” when making decisions about resource allocation?

Several factors are considered when determining resource allocation. Increasing student success is a key element, including improving graduate quality and keeping the cost of education (money and time) reasonable. Projects that help achieve accreditation goals or support faculty recruitment are also given a priority. Many decisions are influenced by the associated departmental risk relative to activities-based budgeting (ABB). UW would like to develop and define metrics for evaluating projects to better define resource allocation. Currently, UW is considering quantitative enterprise risk assessment, according to workshop participants.

June 2014

57


Favorite Building and Classroom

Respondents identified their favorite building and classroom as separate responses, along with the reason for their choice. It is possible for an instructor to prefer a building based on location, while a favorite classroom may be in a different building. Savery and Mary Gates were the highest rated buildings based on proximity to office, excellent technology, and movable furniture. Virtually all reasons for selecting Health Sciences T-wing were because of proximity to office or lab with almost no mention of space quality. PACCAR Hall spaces were chosen primarily for the quality of the teaching spaces (modern, good technology), while location or convenience were minimally mentioned.

Figure 4-02: Number of Faculty Survey Respondents by College/SchoolNearly half of the responding faculty were from the College of Arts & Sciences. The School of Medicine, College of Engineering, and College of the Environment were also well represented.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

4.4 Faculty Survey Summary

In addition to the interviews, all faculty members were invited to participate in a survey to provide their thoughts about scheduling, classroom facilities, and instructional technology. A link to the on-line faculty survey was sent by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic and Student Affairs on 20 November 2013, and remained available for approximately three weeks. A total of 706 responses were received. A summary of key responses is presented here, and verbatim responses to open-ended questions are provided in the Appendix.

June 2014

58


80

63

33

32

27

23

17

17

16

15

13

13

12

10

10

0 20 40 60 80

Savery Hall

Mary Gates Hall

Magnuson Health Sciences Center T

Paccar Hall

Johnson Hall

Kane Hall

Communications Building

Denny Hall

Smith Hall

Miller Hall

More Hall

Thomson Hall

Physics/Astronomy Auditorium

Architecture Hall

Electrical Engineering Building

Number of Votes

Figure 4-03: Favorite BuildingSavery, Mary Gates Hall, and PACCAR were cited as favorite buildings by faculty for proximity to office, classroom technology, and quality teaching environments. The T-Wing was favored because of location relative to faculty offices and labs.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

In addition to their favorite building, respondents were asked which classroom was their favorite. Eagleson 001 received the most votes, primarily based on its location (proximity to office) and appropriate technology. Savery 260, Mary Gates 241, and Johnson 175 were liked for their layouts and technology. Social Work/Speech and Hearing Sciences 305 was favored because it is “a large lecture hall with good technology and lighting.” It is important to note that this classroom is a proprietary room, which categorically have been excluded from this analysis. This classroom has desirable features that were noted by faculty, and was cited to capture these preferences as UW plans for future classrooms. Kane 120 and Johnson 102 are liked primarily for their layouts and technology. Odegaard Undergraduate Library 136 was chosen because it is an “amazing new active learning classroom.”

5

5

5

5

6

7

7

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

Odegaard UndergraduateLibrary 136

Johnson Hall 102

Kane Hall 120

Social Work/Speech andHearing Sci. 305

Johnson Hall 175

Mary Gates Hall 241

Savery Hall 260

Eagleson Hall 001

Number ofVotes

Figure 4-04: Favorite ClassroomVery few respondents noted a favorite classroom. Highly-rated classrooms were liked for proximity to office, instructional technology, and classroom layout.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

June 2014

59


49

29

21

16

15

15

15

14

13

13

13

12

11

10

10

0 20 40 60

Condon Hall

Loew Hall

Electrical Engineering Building

Denny Hall

Mechanical Engineering Building

Sieg Hall

Thomson Hall

Parrington Hall

Bagley Hall

Fishery Sciences Building

Social Work/Speech and Hearing…

Magnuson Health Sciences…

Kane Hall

Chemistry Library Building

Smith Hall

Number ofVotes

Figure 4-05: Least Favorite BuildingVery few of the 706 total respondents listed a least favorite building. Of the responses to this question, Condon was the least favorite for a host of reasons, including its remote location, technology, and classroom environment.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

Least Favorite Building and Classroom

In general, the reasons cited for the least favorite buildings included outdated facilities and technology, poor HVAC, and general maintenance issues such as being dirty and worn out.

Condon Hall and Loew Hall garnered nearly 15 percent of the 369 votes cast for this question. Virtually every classroom feature was criticized in the reasons given. Condon has the additional disadvantage of being farther away. One respondent indicated that Condon was, “very far away and a very sad place to be.”

According to respondents, the Fishery Sciences Building is “too far away.” Social Work/Speech and Hearing Sciences spaces were disliked for environmental factors, including cramped rooms, poor ventilation, and windowless.

Health Sciences T-wing was cited as a least favorite as well as a favorite building. Issues identified were shape of the rooms, and that they were windowless and noisy. Kane Hall rooms are seen as too large and “impersonal.”

A variety of rooms were cited as least favorite. The reasons for disliking individual classrooms reflected the challenges in the least favorite buildings. These included classrooms that were too far away, cramped, had poor ventilation, were windowless, and were too large and impersonal (Kane).

June 2014

60


Figure 4-06: Important Factors in Classroom SelectionInstructional technology is the most important factor when faculty request classrooms. Respondents rated each factor on a scale, and a weighted average was calculated. Each response was multiplied by a factor based on its rating on the scale, and all results were added together for a weighted average. The following factors were applied:High priority (3)Medium priority (2)Low priority (1)Not a priority or not answered (0)(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

Respondents were asked to identify the most important factors when selecting a classroom. Appropriate technology was cited as the highest priority. Also rating at the top of the list were a match between course enrollment and classroom seats, and furniture that supported personal pedagogical approaches.

Weighted Score

June 2014

61


7

9

10

9

14

10

14

13

11

15

16

18

21

26

23

27

25

26

36

33

38

37

40

65

71

88

11

12

13

16

12

14

12

16

18

15

16

17

17

14

19

18

19

21

14

18

15

26

25

14

11

5

24

22

21

19

16

25

18

16

24

21

18

20

17

16

18

15

21

17

14

16

16

13

13

6

5

2

42

44

42

42

44

37

44

39

31

36

34

33

31

32

25

29

24

24

25

21

21

12

12

5

7

4

16

13

14

13

15

14

12

16

16

14

16

12

14

11

15

11

11

11

11

12

10

13

10

10

6

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Two or more Data Projectors

Ability to display individual student's screens to entire class

Videoconferencing

Student response systems ("clickers")

Multiple and/or sliding chalkboards (boards on two or more walls, etc.)

Data outlets for student devices

Optical Overhead Projector (for transparencies)

Single Chalkboard (4' to 12' on one wall)

Multiple smaller projection screens

Document Camera

HD audio and video device connections

Lecture capture

Audio Playback (e.g. CD or MP3)

Voice amplification using wireless microphone

Tabletop lectern

Video Playback (e.g. DVD or Blu-ray)

Wireless connection to Data Projector (e.g. Apple TV)

Power Outlets for student devices

Wireless Internet for student devices

Multiple and/or sliding whiteboards (boards on two or more walls, etc.)

UW provided computer workstation at podium

Single Whiteboard (4' to 12' on one wall)

Integrated equipment controls for technology, lights, room systems

Single, large projection screen (up to 20' wide)

UW provided cable connections for instructor provided laptop/tablet

Data Projector (to display computer, video or document camera…

High priority Medium priority Low priority Not a priority Not Answered

Figure 4-07: Relative Importance of Instructional TechnologiesA data projector was the highest priority in terms of technology in the classroom. Also important was the availability of required cables to allow instructors to connect personal hardware.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

Technology

Faculty members were asked to rate the relative importance of a range of instructional technologies, as well as their current use and anticipated use if technology were more readily available. Overall, a data projector was the highest ranked type of technology in terms of relative importance, as well as current and anticipated use.

June 2014

62


Faculty were asked to rate their current use of instructional technology and their expected used if it were more readily available. Responding faculty members highlighted the availability of a data projector and screen as the most important technology features. This included current use as well as potential use if these were more readily available. Also ranking highly on the list were appropriate cables to allow instructors to connect their own devices to the data projector. Integrated controls for technology were also desirable.

Figure 4-08: Current and Anticipated Use of TechnologiesFaculty currently use a data projector and screen most often, and would use these more often if they were more readily available. Respondents rated each factor on a scale, and a weighted average was calculated. Each response was multiplied by a factor based on its rating on the scale, and all results were added together for a weighted average. The following factors were applied:Nearly every class (5)75% of class meetings (4)50% of class meetings (3)25% of class meetings (2)Less than 25% of class meetings (1)Never or not answered (0)(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

June 2014

63


Highly Satisfied6%

Mostly Satisfied42%

Neutral28%

Mostly Unsatisfied

17%

Highly Unsatisfied

7%

Figure 4-09: Overall Satisfaction with Instructional TechnologyOverall, almost half of responding faculty are highly or mostly satisfied with the instructional technology in the classrooms. (Data Source: Faculty Survey)

Respondents were separately asked whether a lack of access to new technology prevents them from teaching as they would like. A total of 300 of the 706 (42%) responded yes to this question. The most frequently desired technologies were:

- A standard suite of technology in every classroom (“smart” rooms) with consistent user interface

- Multiple-projector options - Student “clickers” - SMART boards - Lecture capture

While there is a desire for more recent and dependable technology, nearly half (48%) the responding faculty members reported feeling highly or mostly satisfied with the instructional technology.

Figure 4-10: Amenities for a Successful Learning EnvironmentThe classroom environment contributes to the learning experience. Faculty felt that the most important factor was the ability for the instructor and students to see and hear each other. Respondents rated each factor on a scale, and a weighted average was calculated. Each response was multiplied by a factor based on its rating on the scale, and all results were added together for a weighted average. The following factors were applied:High priority (3)Medium priority (2)Low priority (1)Not a priority or not answered (0)(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

Classroom Environment

The most important features contributing to classroom environment according to responding faculty members were those that affect the ability to see and hear. Comfortable, re-configurable furniture was also listed as important. Natural light and windows were slightly less important.

On most campuses, there is typically a split between those that prefer blackboards or white boards. Based on this survey, white boards seem to prevail at the UW.

June 2014

64


Very important35%

Important15%

Somewhat important

22%

Not important28%

Figure 4-11: Importance of Movable Classroom FurnitureHalf of the faculty indicated that the ability to move classroom furniture was important or very important. (Data Source: Faculty Survey)

A total of 40 percent of respondents use technology during student breakout sessions. There is a clear correlation between those that never use technology for breakout groups and those that felt that movable furniture was not important.

Almost every class meeting

22%

75% of class meetings

8%


10%


11%

Less than 25% of class meetings

22%

Never27%Figure 4-12: Frequency of Technology Use

to Conduct Breakout GroupsA total of 22 percent of faculty noted that they use technology in almost every class meeting for break out sessions. While many use technology for this purpose, 27 percent never do.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

Important25%

Not important13%

Somewhat important

24%

Very important38%

Figure 4-13: Importance of Ability to Switch Between TechnologiesThe ability to transition easily between technologies was very important to 38 percent of faculty respondents. For those who indicated it was not important, this may be because they use a single technology, such as a data projector for PowerPoint.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

Classroom Flexibility

The ability to reconfigure the layout of the classroom, typically for student collaboration, is an important factor to many instructors. An increasing number of academic disciplines are involving group work in the classroom, including those that were traditionally lecture-based. Half of respondents indicated that the ability to move furniture was very important or important. When asked how often they move furniture, over half of the respondents reported moving the furniture more than 50 percent of the time.

Instructors often use multiple technologies during a class, and there is a strong desire to be able to easily transition from one to another. A total of 63 percent of respondents felt that this capability was very important or important. Further description indicated the need for integrated technologies and the ability to operate multiple technological systems simultaneously. There is a need to have access to the projection screen and a white board (or blackboard) at the same time.

June 2014

65


Scheduling Blocks

Several course meeting options were offered, with variation in the number of meeting days per week, and the duration of each meeting (one hour, one-and-a-half hours, two hours). There is a strong preference for a class schedule that meets two times per week, though the preferred duration of those meetings varied. A total of 43 percent of respondents would like to hold their class twice a week. Meeting three times per week was also desirable, with 22 percent choosing this meeting schedule. Meeting once per week was the choice by 11 percent of respondents, and four or five times per week by 10 percent.

Pass Time

The majority of faculty would prefer to maintain a 10-minute pass time between classes, and about one-third of the respondents would like the pass time to increase to 15 minutes. The size of the campus presents a challenge for those physically located on the outskirts of campus or those who often teach in a building further away from their office.

1 Hour/1x Week4% 1 Hour/2x Week

2%

1 Hour/3x Week15%

1 Hour/4x or 5x Week9%

1.5 Hour/2x Week18%

1.5 Hour/3x Week4%1.5 Hour/4x or 5x Week

1%

2 Hour/1x Week7%

2 Hour/2x Week23%

2 Hour/3x Week3%

Online/no set time0%

Other14%

Figure 4-14: Preferred Class Scheduling FormatUW currently offers a number of options for the number of meeting days and duration of each class. Faculty prefer a schedule with class meetings twice per week.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

5 minutes1%

10 minutes55%

15 minutes31%

20 minutes6% Other

7%

Figure 4-15: Preferred Pass TimeThe size of the campus can be challenging for students or faculty who have back-to-back classes in different buildings. Faculty were asked about the ideal pass time, and the majority felt that the current 10 minutes is sufficient. About one-third felt it should be increased to 15 minutes.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

June 2014

66


Highly Satisfied4%

Mostly Satisfied36%

Neutral29%

Mostly Unsatisfied25%

Highly Unsatisfied6%

Overall Satisfaction

Overall, 40 percent were highly or mostly satisfied with classrooms, while 31 percent reported being unsatisfied. Responses likely reflect the building(s) in which particular respondents teach.

Respondents were asked, “If you could change one thing about the general-assignment classrooms and lecture halls in which you teach, what would it be?” This generated a variety of responses, and the most frequently mentioned are cited below.

• Need for more classrooms because scheduling is very difficult• Complete and uniform technology throughout• More rooms, especially large rooms, with movable furniture• Better maintenance of equipment to increase reliability• Flexible, functional, and comfortable furniture• Improved HVAC• Screens that do not block view of writing surfaces• Monitors so that instructor does not have to look at screen• Lighted lecterns• Better housekeeping/cleaning• Ability to turn off WiFi• More availability of chalk boards

4.5 Student Survey

A student survey was developed with the intention of distributing it to all UW students. With other student surveys underway at the same time, the survey was not fully distributed as planned. Instead, a link to the survey was on the home screen of each station in computer labs. Students had the option of completing the survey, with a chance to win a gift card to the bookstore.

A total of 347 students participated which is not a high response rate relative to the student population. For that reason, the results were not summarized for this report. A summary of the results of all questions are available in the Appendix. There is a representation for each question, either graphic or tabular, as well as verbatim responses to open-ended questions.

Figure 4-16: Overall Satisfaction with ClassroomsFaculty were asked about their overall satisfaction with UW classrooms. A total of 40 percent were highly or mostly satisfied, while 31 percent were unsatisfied.(Data Source: Faculty Survey)

June 2014

67


4.6 Peer Comparison

Introduction

In order to identify and learn from “best practices” currently in place at comparable institutions, a general benchmarking study was conducted. Policies and procedures related to classroom scheduling, proprietary classrooms, and scheduling technology were collected and reviewed. Institutions included in this comparative group were:

Brown University The Ohio State UniversityColumbia University Stanford UniversityDuke University Syracuse UniversityEmory University University of California Berkeley Georgetown University University of MichiganHarvard University University of PennsylvaniaJohns Hopkins University University of Southern CaliforniaMassachusetts Institute of Technology University of WisconsinNew York University Yale UniversityNorthwestern University

As part of the benchmarking process for the UW, the following sections discuss and analyze comparable institutions in the areas of the scheduling process, the use of block scheduling, forced distribution of schedules, and on-line/electronic room request systems.

Classroom Scheduling Process

The scheduling of classes into classrooms is a multifaceted procedure, involving any number of institutional departments, depending on the college or university. Typically, the Registrar documents the schedules of all courses, regardless of where they are held. In scheduling these courses, the Registrar usually assigns courses to general-purpose (or general-assignment) classrooms, while the process for scheduling proprietary, or departmentally-controlled classrooms, often differs by campus. Quite often, individual departments have more input into the schedule of their classrooms, where each department schedules their own proprietary classrooms and reports the schedule to the Registrar. Ohio State University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Northwestern University all take this approach. On these campuses, proprietary classrooms are scheduled and controlled by individual departments. This allows departments to schedule as they choose, regardless of campus time blocks.

In some cases, the Registrar schedules proprietary classrooms as part of the total pool of available classrooms. At Ohio State University and the University of Pennsylvania, the campuses consider all classrooms – general-purpose and proprietary – to be a single pool of space. Departments have “first dibs” on their proprietary classrooms by making a specific request for their own room, but must conform to the meeting patterns, space, and philosophy of the institution when scheduling courses in proprietary rooms. The Registrars of these universities then considers the scheduling needs, and draws classrooms from the pool that best meet the pedagogical needs, technology, and timing of the departments.

June 2014

68


Some campuses use only departmentally-controlled classrooms, and there is no general-purpose pool of classrooms used by the entire campus. This is the case at Columbia University, where no uniform, campus-wide schedule is employed. This creates a challenge for students who take courses in different Colleges at the University, and also reduces the ability to efficiently use classroom resources.

It is important to note that aspects of classrooms and their utilization often involve other campus offices in addition to the Registrar and academic departments. The upkeep of instructional technology and maintenance of classrooms, for example, may also involve the facilities department, IT, and a college/university Teaching and Learning Center.

Block Scheduling

Block scheduling policies are those that require significant regulation of class start and end times. They use days of the week to decree, but not necessarily limit, various class length standards. Some require the forced distribution of different types of classes over the time blocks, a concept covered in the next section of this benchmarking study.

Ohio State, Michigan, UC Berkeley, and Duke University are just some examples of schools that use block scheduling to increase classroom efficiency. Duke uses a standard block scheduling grid, but also makes provisions for variable-length classes within the block schedule. For example, 50-minute classes are contained within the 75-minute blocks, which also allow 60-minute classes to be accommodated, as well.

As another example, USC has developed a clear block schedule, with specific days and times associated with each block. This approach also accommodates courses of varying lengths in concrete block assignments. USC’s policies, block schedule, and scheduling distribution tool can be found in the Appendix.

The goal of block scheduling is to make the most efficient and effective use of instructional days and classroom space to meet the needs of students and faculty, and to best utilize physical classroom resources.

The majority of institutions use a standard 50-minute block for courses meeting three days a week and a standard 75-minute time block for those meeting twice a week.

Some campuses in the study did not have a block schedule policy publicly available. This allows faculty more flexibility in starting and ending class times, but presents scheduling challenges for students and decreases classroom utilization.

Use of block scheduling is one of the greatest controls of making sure all faculty are on “the same page,” at both an intra-departmental and inter-departmental level. Secondly, pass times are more controllable with a block scheduling system. Students do not find themselves in the predicament where one class ends and the next begins five minutes later.

Period 75 Minute Classes T/Th; M/W; W/F

50 Minute Classes M/W/F

1 8:30 – 9:45 8:45 – 9:35

2 10:05 – 11:20 10:20 – 11:10

3 11:45 – 1:00 12:00 – 12:50

4 1:25 – 2:40 1:40 – 2:30

5 3:05 – 4:20 3:20 – 4:10

6 4:40 – 5:55 4:55 – 5:45

7 6:15 – 7:30 6:30 – 7:20

8 7:30 - 7:30 -

Figure 4-17: Duke University Block ScheduleDuke University offers clearly-defined blocks on Monday/Wednesday/Friday, and two-day combinations offer additional flexibility. Although there are specific start and end times for each class period, there are generous pass times built into the schedule. While this enables Duke to schedule some classes for a longer block if appropriate, it also limits the available scheduling hours by allocating significant time in-between each period.(Data Source: Duke Registrar Website,http://registrar.duke.edu/courses-classrooms/class-meeting-periods)

June 2014

69


Forced Scheduling Distribution

While an institution may have a weekly scheduling window (a period of time over each of the five days in which courses can be scheduled), there are peak and off-peak hours during the day and weeks, typically guided by personal preference. To be sure of effective classroom scheduling, proper utilization, and student opportunities to take classes during times of the day when available, a forced schedule distribution can be implemented.

The University of Southern California and Georgetown University are exemplary models of institutions with forced scheduling distribution. The University of Southern California makes their instructions very clear, presenting all faculty and staff with scheduling procedures that must be adhered to, some of which can be found below.

• Each department (or affiliated departmental grouping) must distribute its course offerings such that a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 16% of total weekly departmental course offerings occur in each hour from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Each department must distribute its course offerings such that a minimum of 16% and a maximum of 23% of the weekly course offerings in the 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. time period occur on each day from Monday through Friday.

• Whenever possible, courses that are scheduled to meet for only part of the MWF or TTh sequence should be matched with another course (with an estimated enrollment difference of 10%) to complete the weekly sequence.

Georgetown University, like the University of Southern California, has the following appended to the Scheduling Guidelines of the university:

• Departments should schedule at least 10% of their classes on each day of the week (Monday-Friday).

• Departments should schedule no more than 20% of their classes at any one hour for daytime classes (8:15 AM – 6:05 PM). Departments are encouraged to schedule at least 5% of their classes to start at 8:15 AM or 8:50 AM.

A less structured scheduling policy creates more flexibility for departments, but catalyzes many problems regarding individual student schedules and the Registrar’s ability to work with several departments through the institution.By holding individual departments responsible for distributing the schedule across days and hours, like the University of California Berkeley, much more flexibility is incorporated into the scheduling process. The result is that course offerings are distributed across the week and day, allowing the Registrar and/or department head to schedule classrooms more efficiently. While some exceptions might need to be made, a forced distribution eases the pressure on classrooms during peak hours and allows the Registrar to best match enrollments with classroom capacity by reducing time restrictions.

June 2014

70


On-line/Electronic Room Request System

Some of the comparable institutions utilize an interactive website database to provide everyone an accessible inventory from which to request classrooms based on pedagogical approach. This assures that faculty are given the opportunity to teach in the classroom that best meets the needs of the course. Yale University, Ohio State University, UC Berkeley, and Brown University have very comprehensive on-line classroom request sites. Brown University’s provides the requester with a way to request not only classrooms, but also specific technology and seating arrangements.On-line/electronic room request systems are very beneficial. User requests are entered into the same database, which then assures that no two classes are scheduled for the same classroom.

Summary

While the development of scheduling procedures and ownership of classrooms is specific to each institution, there are some common practices among peer and similar institutions. At the majority of campuses in this study, the Registrar is responsible for scheduling general-purpose classrooms using a block schedule. Several also have on-line room request forms, and some have instituted a forced distribution policy. These characteristics are summarized in Figure 4-18.

Uni

vers

ity o

f Was

hing

ton

Bro

wn

Uni

vers

ity

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Em

ory

Uni

vers

ity

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity

Har

vard

Uni

vers

ity

J ohn

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

Mas

sach

uset

ts In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

The

Ohi

o S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

Syr

acus

e U

nive

rsity

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia B

erke

ley

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mic

higa

n

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pen

nsyl

vani

a

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

ther

n C

alifo

rnia

Uni

vers

ity o

f Wis

cons

in

Yal

e U

nive

rsity

Registrar schedules general-purpose classrooms • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Block schedule • • • • • • • • • • •

Forced distribution of schedule • • • • • • • • On-line/electronic room request system • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Figure 4-18: Benchmarking, Classroom Scheduling PoliciesPeer and comparison institutions were researched to gather information about classroom scheduling policies. Four categories were benchmarked: centralized Registrar scheduling, block schedule, forced scheduling distribution, and on-line room request system. Institutions are marked where policies exist. (Data Source: Campus websites and RA internal benchmarking database)

June 2014

71


A Case Study: Ohio State University

Considered to be a time-honored, peer institution by University of Washington staff and personnel, Ohio State University found major impediments in its instructional space scheduling, utilization, and up-keeping as recently as the past five years. Similar in size to UW, Ohio State has general-purpose classrooms located in over four dozen different buildings, spreading throughout an expansive campus. Ohio State set out to schedule its proprietary and non-proprietary classrooms in the most efficient, equitable, and accurate manner possible.

Facing the difficulties of classroom scheduling throughout campus, as well as limited financial resources, restricted classroom size and flexibility, and aging infrastructure, OSU chose to abandon its decentralized classroom management and maintenance system. Instead, it focused on bringing all the aspects of classroom scheduling and preparation to the forefront in an effort to consolidate activities. Perhaps one of its greatest results of this inspiring process was the creation of The CRC (Classroom Readiness Committee). The Classroom Readiness Committee is the partnership of the following on-campus offices: Office of the University Registrar, Ohio State On-line, Physical Planning and Real Estate, Facilities Design and Construction, and Facilities Operations & Development. The CRC, amongst other aspects, ensures that instructional spaces on campus meet the needs of departments.

In this case study, Ohio State University’s implementation of classroom scheduling procedures will be analyzed. (Information substantially derived from “The Ohio State University Instructional Space Feasibility Study,” April 2009.) The benefits and drawbacks of registrar-scheduled general purpose classrooms, block scheduling, forced distribution of scheduling, and web use for room requests (all procedures strongly facilitated through OSU registrar and CRC), will be reviewed. Just as University of Washington Registrar, faculty, and staff seek to expand their expertise in beneficial, proven classroom scheduling procedures, OSU members look back upon the strategic steps they took to make campus-wide scheduling easier, and how the move to processes such as succinct block scheduling has made OSU a much more efficient less costly run university over the past half-decade.

BackgroundFive years ago, the majority of OSU’s classrooms and classroom laboratories were departmentally-controlled. The University had several classrooms that were not even utilized, mainly because the university as a whole was unaware of them. Many departments saw major periods throughout the day where the majority of their classrooms were not being scheduled. An example, which will be referenced later, is some departments between noon and 2:00 p.m. had fewer than one-quarter of their classrooms scheduled. Classrooms were also not spread throughout the week nor were they spread throughout the time block of the full day, meaning utilization was very low and there was heavy pressure on classroom scheduling.

Also, due to the decentralized management of the numerous classrooms on campus, there was no single place to request certain classrooms or speak about issues and problems with certain classrooms. The Classroom Readiness Committee had its needs, its drivers, and its mission laid out in front of it.

June 2014

72


ApproachIn April of 2009, OSU undertook an instructional space utilization analysis of its general-purpose classrooms, lecture halls, and computer labs. Recommendations included giving the Registrars Office as much control as possible over classroom scheduling, improving and redesigning a classroom services website that allows for the posting of scheduling guidelines, and adhering to a fairly strict block scheduling format for all general-purpose classrooms.

ResultsToday, Ohio State’s block scheduling format is on the Registrar’s website. Scheduling policies are clearly articulated, including the forced distribution of classes, stating that departments must spread their courses throughout the day so that no more than 11% of their class meetings occur at any one time of the day. Also on the site are forms to request certain classrooms for the entire semester, or just for exam time.

The low utilization of proprietary rooms during noon to 2:00 p.m. was determined to be a clear scheduling opportunity. This was a peak time-frame in general-purpose classrooms. By adding these unutilized classrooms to the registrar’s schedule, scheduling opportunities during this part of the day were greatly expanded.

The Classroom Readiness Committee has made and continues to make a significant impact on the campus. Issues that plagued Ohio State before, such as classrooms in too many buildings and classroom spaces located outside strategic framework areas, are nearly things of the past. The Classroom Readiness Committee continues to achieve strategically focused goals in areas such as Teaching and Learning, Research and Innovation, Resource Stewardship, and Outreach and Engagement. Ohio State continues to benefit immensely from the necessary changes recommended and accepted by University personnel.

June 2014

73


4.7 Classroom Technology Peer Analysis

Overview

In addition to other analysis, classroom technology was benchmarked with peer institutions.

Two groups of peers were suggested by UW: The Global Challenge State Peer Institutions (GCS Peers) and Higher Education Coordinating Board Peer Group (HECB Peers). In addition, the investigation included the group of large (more than 30,000 student FTE) public institutions with extensive doctoral programs (Carnegie Classification DR EXT). These three groups were used to compare institution investment in classroom technology, focusing particularly on a subset of “close peers.”

The most coherent data on technology in higher education is contained in the Educause Core Data Survey, which consists of multiple modules. Not all the schools in these four groups completed the survey, and of those who did, not all completed all modules.

Refer to Figure 4-21 for the list of “Close Peers”, a complete list of Core Data participant peers is included in the appendix.

Technology Funding Review

The global economic crisis of 2008-2009 hit public universities particularly hard. The University of Washington has seen its revenues from state appropriations drop from 15.0% of revenue in 2009 to 5.0% in 2013 (Source: University of Washington, 2013 Annual Report to Stakeholders). Other public universities have seen similar declines. As with most segments of the economy, the economic downturn led to severe fiscal constraints at public universities, constraints that were weathered in part by deferring the maintenance of technology and facilities. It is therefore necessary to be cautious about drawing conclusions from current peer expenditures, since some states have not recovered from the crisis and others are rebuilding rapidly to deal with the deferred maintenance issues.

Comparison of financial figures across different universities has further difficulties, including:

• Are salaries included in departmental budgets?• Are staff benefit costs included in departmental budgets?• What percentage of classrooms on campus (general assignment vs

departmental, the large central campus vs. other research/facilities like the HSC) are accounted for/totaled up in the Core Data database?

• What role does central IT play? (e.g., Does central I.T. include the library, a computer store, classroom technology service calls, classroom technology procurement and/or installation, a faculty development group, etc.)

Late in the 2012 academic year, classroom technology was not part of central IT at the University of Washington. Consequently, figures for educational technology expenses did not include the technology in classrooms in the UW responses published in the 2013 Educause survey. The data was normalized in

Figure 4-21: Close Peers• Arizona State University• The Pennsylvania State University• University of California, Berkley• University of California, Los Angeles• University of California, San Diego• University of Illinois,

Champaign-Urbana• University of Michigan• University of Minnesota, Twin Cities• University of North Carolina,

Chapel Hill• University of Virginia(Data Source: UW-IT, based on 2013 focus group session)

June 2014

74


this investigation by adding the budget (for fiscal year 2013, provided by CTE) for Classroom Technology and Events to the published UW-IT values in order to compare total UW technology budgets to other peers where central IT is responsible for classroom technology.

Figures 4-22 to 4-24 summarize the peer comparison. The UW-IT operating expenses per FTE Student appear in-line with the average of all peers compared, and the % value spent on classrooms (educational technology budget as a portion of the total IT budget) also appears to be in line with peers.

Figure 4-22: Summary Classroom Technology Peer AnalysisPeer comparison for percentage of classrooms with a particular classroom technology feature (listed vertically at the top) installed, as reported.University of Washington and an average of other Educause participating peers is shown, see the Appendix for a detailed listing of each peer and corresponding values.(Data Source: 2013 Educause Core Data)

Figure 4-23: Summary Instructional Technology Peer AnalysisPeer comparison for the ratio of devices to students for the most commonly reported / most popular learning technologies:• Access to wired LAN Data Ports (%

student seats)• Wireless LAN data (% coverage)• Computers (UW supplied) per head• Student Response “Clickers” (per

head)(not reported by UW)• Informal Learning / Group Study

seating (per head)• Installed group study collaborative

technology for student use (per head) (not reported by UW)

(Data Source: 2013 Educause Core Data)

Figure 4-24: Summary Classroom Capture/Conferencing Peer AnalysisPeer comparison for percentage of classrooms with installed video, audio, and presentation recording capabilities and also video conferencing/distance learning systems.(Data Source: 2013 Educause Core Data)

June 2014

75


However, there are a few budget and Educause Survey anomalies, noted below, that may skew the peer comparison:

Budget per number of General Assignment Classrooms:First, UW reports more general assignment classrooms than many of the peers investigated. This may have an impact on per-classroom expenditure of technology dollars: although the UW gross technology budget seems in line with peers, those dollars are spread thinner over a greater number of rooms.(See also: the recommendations on “right-sizing” classrooms in the Utilization section)

13% of UW Upper Campus served with cart-mounted equipment:Second, the number of “Installed AV” rooms listed in the University of Washington Educause Core Data includes rooms supplied with a projector on a cart, artificially inflating UW scores to 84%, nearly in line with the peer average (89.4%). However, based on Educause Core Data guidelines, those numbers should only count for permanently installed systems, adjusting the UW campus (installed) system rate to 71%.

No clear comparison for Health Sciences Campus:UW reporting to the Core Data database appears to not include the HSC. Conversely, there are no peers identified by UW and/or participating in the Coredata database that provide a direct comparison for the Health Sciences. However, some general trends and context can be derived from our analysis of general peer groups.

For further context, the assessment team interviewed the UC San Francisco Medical Center as a specific peer comparison of funding (included in the Appendix).

Classroom Technologies Peer Group In-depth

In further comparison of UW classrooms to that of its peers, a few observations emerge. As far as the bare-bones basics (an instructor’s station with wired internet connectivity, a laptop connection, connection to a data projector), UW appears to fare well against the three groups (GCS, HECB, and Large Public peer groups), although against the peers in the select group the laptop connectivity and projection numbers appear low (84% for UW*against 96% and 97% respectively).

*Note: The UW 84% statistic may represent a reporting error. According to Educause guidelines, these numbers should reflect ONLY permanently installed systems and exclude cart-mounted projectors, which other peers listed separately. Based on those guidelines, corrected UW values should be 71% installed and 13% cart-mounted.

Looking at functionality beyond the basics, the numbers tend to be quite low for teacher oriented technologies (computer installed, document camera, control system, integrated control and switching, audio controls).

June 2014

76


Perhaps the most telling statistic, and the one that most impacts support costs and reliability, is the percentage of rooms with remote monitoring for technology support. The UW figure for fraction of rooms with remote monitoring for technology support is 37%, compared to 54% for the average over all peers, and 69% for the select group of close peers. Without intervention, this gap will continue to widen as peers update rooms according to their technology life cycle policies and more new rooms are managed centrally.

5.0 UtilizationUniversity of Washington / Learning Space Assessment

June 201477

5.1 Overview

This chapter discusses planning guidelines and recommendations associated with the analysis of instructional space and course scheduling data at the UW. All general-assignment classrooms scheduled during Fall 2013 were reviewed for weekly hours of use, seat occupancy rates, and assignable square feet per seat. Proprietary classrooms will be analyzed separately, and may be considered for additional scheduling capacity. The findings and applicable planning guidelines were then compared to identify current or projected space “gaps.”

Drawing upon this information, the recommended distribution of general-purpose classrooms for the UW is presented. The proposed classroom distribution identifies the number, capacity, and size of rooms needed to support courses while considering UW’s defined scheduling window and planning guidelines. “Right-sizing” is a preliminary option for addressing UW’s needs, and the potential results of this exercise are explored.

The primary purpose of this analysis is to inform facilities planning decisions and support the allocation of capital resources within a broader planning context. The outcome of this detailed diagnosis of instructional space is intended to identify the availability of appropriate core mission space, in adequate amounts, in the right locations, during the times it is needed.

The statistical methodology applied by Rickes Associates to the instructional space utilization analysis is widely used and accepted in higher education. The analysis incorporates suggested guidelines regarding scheduling windows and weekly room use hours, average seat occupancy rates, and seat sizes. Adherence to these guidelines, where these three variables are concerned, provides credible and defensible findings to support planning and prioritization of vital capital improvements.

The definition of a general-purpose (or general-assignment) classroom developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is:

A room used for courses that are not tied to a specific subject or discipline by equipment in or the configuration of the room. These rooms are generally used for scheduled instruction that require no special, restrictive equipment or configuration. A classroom may be furnished with special equipment (e.g., maps, globes, etc.) if this equipment does not render the room unsuitable for use by classes in other areas of study.

5.0 Classroom Utilization Analysis and Recommendations


June 201478

5.0 Utilization

5.2 Distribution of Existing Classroom Space For the purposes of this study, the UW campus was considered to be two campuses: Upper Campus and Health Sciences. There are multiple reasons for creating this distinction. Physically, the Magnuson Health Science building is on the lower campus and is a notable distance from the Upper Campus buildings. It is also a massive structure with multiple wings making it feel like a self-contained campus. Currently, there are separate classroom scheduling offices for Upper Campus and Health Sciences, though there is positive communication and collaboration between the two when there is a need to “borrow” a classroom to meet specific scheduling needs. Many of the disciplines in Health Sciences have unique schedules to accommodate the didactic and clinical aspects of a medical school curriculum. Many Health Sciences courses follow a different schedule than that of other UW courses, which presents challenges in scheduling all courses in universally shared classrooms. For these reasons, it was assumed that Health Sciences will continue to essentially operate separately from Upper Campus.

This section presents the utilization findings associated with the 306 general-assignment classrooms on the Upper Campus and 43 in Health Sciences. Both campuses also have proprietary or departmentally-controlled, classrooms, which will be explored separately. These analyses are based on day utilization, which was identified as the driver of instructional space needs. Although there is some classroom use during evening hours, it is clearly lower than day use.General-assignment classrooms exist in 44 buildings on the Upper Campus, representing 293,505 assignable square feet of space. The Magnuson Health Sciences building was divided into wings, each representing a separate “building.” Using this method, Health Sciences has nine buildings with classrooms, equating to 44,292 assignable square feet of classroom space. Mary Gates Hall and Denny Hall have the greatest number of classrooms on Upper Campus with 22 each, and the T-wing on Health Sciences has 19. Each of the following buildings contains just one classroom: Marine Studies, Ocean Teaching, and Winkenwerder Forest Sciences Laboratory on Upper Campus and Health Sciences A, D, I, and RR on Health Sciences.

Figure 5-01 shows the distribution of classroom density across campus, by building.


June 201479

Figure 5-01: Campus Classroom DistributionClassrooms are reasonably distributed across campus. The map depicts the density of the number classrooms in each building. The light gold represents the fewest classrooms and progresses to the dark purple with the greatest number of classrooms.(Data Source: Registrar data and Facilities/SIMS export)


June 201480

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-02: General-Purpose Classrooms by Building, Health SciencesHealth Sciences classroom buildings are summarized showing number of classrooms, seats, and total classroom assignable square footage (ASF). Average ASF per seat for all classrooms in the building was calculated.(Data Source: Registrar data and Facilities/SIMS export)

Building Code

Building NameNumber of Classrooms

Number of Seats

Assignable Square Feet

(ASF)

Average Seat Size

(ASF/Seat)HSA Magnuson Health Sciences A 1 482 5,566 11.5

HSB Magnuson Health Sciences B 2 62 936 15.1

HSD Magnuson Health Sciences D 1 168 2,208 13.1

HSE Magnuson Health Sciences E 3 66 1,280 19.4

HSI Magnuson Health Sciences I 1 30 797 26.6

HSK Magnuson Health Sciences K 1 94 1,324 14.1

HSR Magnuson Health Sciences R 1 50 806 16.1

HST Magnuson Health Sciences T 19 1419 22,336 15.7

SOCC South Campus Center 14 407 9,039 22.2

43 2,778 44,292 15.9Total

5.3 Findings

Seat Size

Seat size refers to the average amount of assignable square footage available per student seat. This metric is calculated by dividing total assignable square footage per instructional room, as identified in the space inventory, by the total number of seats, as identified by the Registrar. A range of 20 to 25 assignable square feet per seat is recommended in typical flat floor classroom spaces, for example.

On average, six buildings fell within the recommended seat size range on Upper Campus, two buildings were above the target range, and the remaining were below. On Health Sciences, the majority of buildings were below the target range, one was above, and none of the buildings fell within the recommended range. It should be noted that individual classrooms were above and below the average, and this may be appropriate relative to the classroom type. For instance, a large lecture auditorium may comfortably fall in the 12 to 15 ASF per seat range, and an active learning classroom may require more than 30 ASF per seat.

The following table summarizes classroom information by building. Individual classroom results are shown in the Appendix.


June 201481

Building Code

Building NameNumber of Classrooms

Number of Seats

Assignable Square Feet

(ASF)

Average Seat Size

(ASF/Seat)AND Anderson Hall 3 250 3,474 13.9

ARC Architecture Hall 3 405 5,938 14.7

ART Art Building 4 155 2,981 19.2

BAG Bagley Hall 7 655 7,083 10.8

BLD Bloedel Hall 2 60 832 13.9

BNS Benson Hall 3 120 1,839 15.3

CDH Condon Hall 14 735 12,420 16.9

CHL Chemistry Library Building 3 105 1,461 13.9

CLK Clark Hall 3 80 2,352 29.4

CMU Communications Building 7 355 5,137 14.5

DEM Dempsey Hall 9 480 12,213 25.4

DEN Denny Hall 22 765 11,880 15.5

EEBElectrical Engineering Building 10 640 10,870 17

EGL Eagleson Hall 1 80 1,578 19.7

EXEDBank of America Executive Education Center 1 125 2,862 22.9

FSH Fishery Sciences 4 295 5,627 19.1

FTRFisheries Teaching and Research Building 2 50 750 15

GLD Gould Hall 4 200 3,041 15.2

GUG Guggenheim Hall 3 445 5,015 11.3

GWN Gowen Hall 2 315 5,544 17.6

HCK Hitchcock Hall 2 195 3,092 15.9

JHN Johnson Hall 6 485 8,183 16.9

KNE Kane Hall 5 1870 27,790 14.9

LOW Loew Hall 21 785 14,165 18

MAR Marine Sciences Building 1 20 485 24.3

MEBMechanical Engineering Building 13 525 9,642 18.4

MGH Mary Gates Hall 22 865 19,446 22.5

MLR Miller Hall 4 240 2,952 12.3

MOR More Hall 6 330 5,936 18

MUE Mueller Hall 3 170 2,506 14.7

MUS Music Building 6 425 5,639 13.3

OTBOceanography Teaching Building 1 100 1,463 14.6

OUG Odegaard Library 2 160 5,610 35.1

PAAPhysics-Astronomy Auditorium 6 660 8,287 12.6

PAB Physics-Astronomy Building 2 50 1,499 30

PAR Parrington Hall 12 295 6,159 20.9

PCAR PACCAR Hall 9 720 15,181 21.1

RAI Raitt Hall 4 155 2,361 15.2

SAV Savery Hall 21 790 13,819 17.5

SIG Sieg Hall 8 435 6,306 14.5

SMI Smith Hall 18 1090 15,524 14.2

SWSSocial Work/Speech and Hearing Sciences Building 10 330 4,890 14.8

THO Thompson Hall 16 660 8,707 13.2

WFSWinkenwerder Forest Sciences Laboratory 1 70 965 13.8

306 17,740 293,504 16.5Total

Figure 5-03: General-Purpose Classrooms by Building, Upper CampusUpper Campus classroom buildings are summarized showing number of classrooms, seats, and total classroom assignable square footage (ASF). Average ASF per seat for all classrooms in the building was calculated.(Data Source: Registrar data and Facilities/SIMS export)


June 201482

5.0 Utilization

Seat Occupancy Rate

The seat occupancy rate refers to the proportion of instructional seats occupied when the room is scheduled, relative to the total seat capacity of that instructional space. When a room is occupied, it is suggested that 67 percent of the available classroom seats be filled, on average. Since this is an average, lower and higher occupancy rates will exist on a room-by-room basis. The two-thirds rate has been found to be an efficient average, given that course sizes are not entirely predictable.

The average seat occupancy rate of all buildings on the Upper and Health Sciences Campuses is 64 percent, within the target utilization band (Figure 5-04 and Figure 5-05). Eighteen buildings had a seat occupancy rate greater than 67 percent, on average. When viewed separately, the average classroom seat occupancy for Upper Campus is 66 percent and Health Sciences is 49 percent. Individual classroom results are shown in the Appendix.

Figure 5-04: Student Seat Occupancy by Building: Health Sciences Average seat occupancy was calculated for all courses held in each building. The overall average for all buildings on the Health Sciences campus is shown as the red bar, while the target seat occupancy of 67 percent is indicated as the dark vertical line.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Name of College AND Name of Project 1

DRAFT xx January 2013

Figure 5-04: Student Seat Occupancy by Building:Health Sciences Campus

67%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Magnuson Health Sciences Center A

Fialkow Biomedical Sciences Research Pavilion (K wing)

Magnuson Health Sciences Center D

South Campus Center

Magnuson Health Sciences Center RR

Health Sciences Campus Average

Magnuson Health Sciences Center E


Magnuson Health Sciences Center B

Magnuson Health Sciences Center I


June 201483

Figure 5-05: Student Seat Occupancy by Building: Upper CampusAverage seat occupancy was calculated for all courses held in each building. The overall average for all buildings on the Upper Campus is shown as the red bar, while the target seat occupancy of 67 percent is indicated as the dark vertical line.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)



Figure 5-05: Student Seat Occupancy by Building: Upper Campus

67%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Music BuildingMarine Studies Building

Clark HallFishery Sciences

Physics-Astronomy AuditoriumHitchcock Hall

More HallRaitt Hall

Oceanography Teaching BuildingWinkenwerder Forest Sciences Laboratory

Architecture HallThomson Hall

Smith HallCommunications Building

Eagleson HallJohnson HallMueller Hall

Bank of America Executive Education CenterBenson Hall

Gould HallMechanical Engineering Building

Electrical Engineering BuildingMiller Hall

PACCAR HallSavery Hall

Social Work/Speech and Hearing Sciences BuildingAnderson Hall

Upper Campus AverageDenny Hall

Condon HallLoew HallSieg Hall

Fisheries Teaching and Research BuildingGowen Hall

Chemistry Library BuildingBagley Hall

Kane HallMary Gates HallParrington Hall

Bloedel HallArt Building

Dempsey HallOdegaard Undergraduate Library

Physics Astronomy BuildingGuggenheim Hall


June 201484

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-06: Average Weekly Daytime Room Hour Utilization by Building: Health Sciences CampusAverage weekly room hour utilization was calculated for all courses held in each building. This represents the number of scheduled hours compared to available hours. The overall average for all buildings on the Health Sciences campus is shown as the red bar, while the target room hour utilization of 67 percent is indicated as the dark vertical line.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Weekly Room Hour Utilization Rate

The weekly room hour utilization rate refers to the proportion of time instructional spaces are actually used relative to the total time those spaces are available (scheduling window). An institution’s scheduling window refers to the block of time within which it is reasonable and possible to schedule all or most coursework.

Four-year college and university scheduling windows generally range from 40 hours per week to 50 hours per week, with large research universities at the upper end of the range. The length of the scheduling window has a direct impact on the overall number of rooms to be recommended. The shorter or more compressed the scheduling window, the more classrooms will be needed to support the course sections. The opposite is true if the scheduling window is lengthened.

The planning goal is to schedule general-purpose classrooms 67 percent of available hours within the scheduling window. This utilization target was determined as a result of analyses conducted by a number of leading higher education facilities agencies, and is widely accepted as an efficient utilization factor. The primary reason for this goal is that a perfect “match” between available classroom capacities and course section enrollments cannot always be made in every time period. Classroom capacity, course enrollment, seat configuration, technology, and other amenities impact demand and availability. The two-thirds utilization rate enables scheduling flexibility, permits access for maintenance, and allows for ad hoc use, such as special events.

The agreed upon window at the UW, based on discussion with the Registrar, is 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, equating to a 40-hour weekly scheduling window. Using the 67 percent utilization guideline along with the current scheduling window, the UW should schedule classrooms for 27 hours per week, on average.



Figure 5-06: Average Weekly Daytime Room Hour Utilization by Building: Health Sciences Campus

67%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South Campus Center

Magnuson Health Sciences Center B

Magnuson Health Sciences Center A

Magnuson Health Sciences Center E

Magnuson Health Sciences Center RR

Health Sciences Campus Average

Fialkow Biomedical Sciences Research Pavilion (K wing)

Magnuson Health Sciences Center I


Magnuson Health Sciences Center D


June 201485

Figure 5-07: Average Weekly Daytime Room Hour Utilization by Building: Upper CampusAverage weekly room hour utilization was calculated for all courses held in each building. This represents the number of scheduled hours compared to available hours. The overall average for all buildings on the Health Sciences campus is shown as the red bar, while the target room hour utilization of 67 percent is indicated as the dark vertical line.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

General-assignment classrooms on both Upper and Health Sciences Campuses at the UW are actually scheduled for 54 percent of the available hours during the day. On Upper Campus only, this rate is slightly higher at 57 percent, and notably lower on Health Sciences with 30 percent. The overall average is below the target range of 67 percent room hour utilization, though the Health Sciences classrooms are well below the goal. Of all campus buildings, seven (all on Upper Campus) had a room hour utilization rate of greater than or equal to 67 percent, on average. Individual classroom results are shown in the Appendix.

Figure 5-06 and Figure 5-07 show room hour utilization rates by building, and as an average of all classrooms.



Figure 5-07: Average Weekly Daytime Room Hour Utilization by Building: Upper Campus

67%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fisheries Teaching and Research BuildingMarine Studies Building

Fishery SciencesOceanography Teaching Building

Bloedel HallCondon Hall

Odegaard Undergraduate LibrarySocial Work/Speech and Hearing Sciences Building

Music BuildingParrington Hall

Gould HallSieg Hall

Mechanical Engineering BuildingPhysics Astronomy Building

Raitt HallSmith Hall

Guggenheim HallMiller Hall

Denny HallUpper Campus Average

Clark HallCommunications Building

Loew HallMore Hall

Mueller HallPhysics-Astronomy Auditorium

Hitchcock HallAnderson Hall

Architecture HallChemistry Library Building

Dempsey HallElectrical Engineering Building

Mary Gates HallBenson HallArt Building

Thomson HallBagley Hall

Winkenwerder Forest Sciences LaboratorySavery HallGowen Hall

Johnson HallPACCAR HallEagleson Hall

Bank of America Executive Education CenterKane Hall


June 201486

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-08 graphically displays average weekly room hour utilization for all classrooms in each building on campus. The light pink represents a room hour utilization rate of less than 55 percent, where the total number of hours scheduled in classrooms is less than 55 percent of the available hours. The scale continues to the light purple, where the number of classroom hours scheduled in the building are 72 to 75 percent of available hours. The target of 67 percent is shown as dark purple.

Figure 5-08: Map of Weekly Room Hour Utilization by Building Room hour utilization varies in classrooms across campus. Each building was coded based on the average room hour utilization of all classrooms within it. The two-thirds target room hour utilization is represented by dark purple. As utilization increases, the buildings are shown in increasingly lighter shades of blue. As utilization decreases, buildings are shown in shades of red to pink. Classrooms in light blue buildings are scheduled more than 72 percent of available hours, while pink buildings are less than 55 percent.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)


June 201487

Distribution of GPCRs by Daytime Seat Occupancy and Weekly Hour UtilizationGuideline Seat

Occupancy, 67%

Guideline Room Hour Utilization, 67%

I. Low OccupancyHigh Utilization

IV. Low OccupancyLow Utilization

II. High OccupancyHigh Utilization

III. High OccupancyLow Utilization

Unscheduled:2 Upper Campus4 Health Sciences

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy

Health Sciences Campus

Upper Campus

Health Sciences CampusAverageUpper Campus Average

Distribution of GPCRs by Daytime Seat Occupancy and Weekly Hour UtilizationGuideline Seat

Occupancy, 67%







0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy

Health Sciences Campus

Upper Campus


The seat and room hour utilization rates for each building represent an average of the individual classrooms. The following graphics show both seat and room hour utilization for all classrooms on both the Upper Campus and Health Sciences. Each point in the following three scatter plots represents a classroom based on its average room hour utilization and seat occupancy. Classrooms in the upper right quadrant have high seat and room hour utilization, while those in the lower left quadrant have low utilization for both metrics.

While the data used for each of the classroom plot points are identical in each graph, the information is displayed through three different lenses. In Figure 5-09, classrooms are designated as Upper Campus or Health Sciences. Figure 5-10 presents the same classrooms and utilization data defined by classroom type. The classrooms were also plotted by zone, shown in Figure 5-11.

Figure 5-09: Distribution of Classrooms by Seat Occupancy and Seat UtilizationClassrooms clustered at the intersection of the 67 percent guideline for seat occupancy and room hour utilization are meeting efficiency targets. Campus averages and unscheduled classrooms are also shown. Upper Campus classrooms have the highest utilization, while Health Sciences are in the opposite quadrant.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)


June 201488

5.0 Utilization

Distribution of GPCRs by Daytime Seat Occupancy and Weekly Hour Utilization by Zone

Guideline Seat Occupancy, 67%







0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy

NE Zone

SE Zone

HS Zone

SW-C Zone

NW Zone

SW Zone

Upper Campus Average

Health Sciences CampusAverage









0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy

NE Zone

SE Zone

HS Zone

SW-C Zone

NW Zone

SW Zone



Distribution of GPCRs by Daytime Seat Occupancy and Weekly Hour UtilizationMain Campus and Health Science Campus by Room Type








0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy

Upper Campus ActiveLearningUpper Campus Auditorium

Upper Campus Classroom

Upper Campus Seminar

Health Sciences Auditorium

Health Sciences Classroom

Health Sciences Conference

Health Sciences Seminar










0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy









Figure 5-10: Distribution of Classrooms by Seat Occupancy and Seat Utilization, by Room TypeRooms defined as classrooms were the most common in the most efficient 67 percent range. Seminar and conference rooms showed the lowest utilization, most likely because of other uses. Campus averages and unscheduled classrooms are shown. (Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Figure 5-11: Distribution of Classrooms by Seat Occupancy and Seat Utilization, by ZoneThe Northeast and Southeast zones had the highest utilization, in general. Classrooms in the low utilization quadrant were distributed across campus zones.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)









0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy










June 201489









0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy

NE Zone

SE Zone

HS Zone

SW-C Zone

NW Zone

SW Zone











0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hou

r Util

izat

ion

Seat Occupancy









Figure 5-12: Distribution of Classrooms by Day and Time, Upper CampusWICHE and CEFPI recognizes 67% as the target utilization rate. While the average seat occupancy hovers near the target 67 percent throughout the day and week, there are clear “peak” days and times for room hour utilization. On Upper Campus, there is high use from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. every day, with a drop-off through the afternoon (more precipitously on Friday).(Source: WICHE. Higher Education Facilities Planning and Management Manuals. Manual Two: Classroom and Class Laboratory Facilities.Source: CEFPI. Space Planning for Institutions of Higher Education. Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Classroom use is often influenced by scheduling demands, creating peaks and valleys during the day and throughout the week. On many campuses, highest use during the day is typically late morning through early afternoon with lower use during the “shoulder” periods.

General-assignment classrooms on Upper Campus are heavily used from about 9:30 a.m. through 2:30 p.m., with as many as 287 classrooms (94%) scheduled at once on Tuesday mornings. There is a noticeable drop in use at 3:30 p.m. each day, and Fridays have lower use in general. Evenings after 4:30 p.m. show very minimal use for courses, with fewer than 27 percent of classrooms in use at any given time. Classrooms are used for Continuing Education/Extension courses in the late afternoon/early evening hours (these courses were not part of this analysis). On Upper Campus, some classrooms are difficult to access in the evenings, as buildings may be closed and locked at a certain time by the primary College/School occupant. Health Sciences does not show a clear peak period during the day, scheduling a maximum of 22 classrooms for courses at any given time. Classrooms are used for other curriculum-driven purposes, though only courses were analyzed in this study. Courses conclude by 5:30 p.m., with no evening use of classrooms for courses.

Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13 display the number of classrooms in use by day and time, as determined by the number of courses scheduled in each half-hour time block across the week. This figure graphically depicts the peaks and valleys of the schedule from 7:30 a.m. through 8:30 p.m., by day of the week. The upper end of the y-axis for each day refers to the total number of classrooms available for scheduling: 306 on Upper Campus and 43 on Health Sciences.


C:\Users\elizabeth.schultz\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\ZR6G187D\5-12 distribution of classrooms by day and time upper campus.xlsxUpper Campus

7:30 A

M

8:00 A

M

8:30 A

M

9:00 A

M

9:30 A

M

10:00

AM

10:30

AM

11:00

AM

11:30

AM

12:00

PM

12:30

PM

1:00 P

M

1:30 P

M

2:00 P

M

2:30 P

M

3:00 P

M

3:30 P

M

4:00 P

M

4:30 P

M

5:00 P

M

5:30 P

M

6:00 P

M

6:30 P

M

7:00 P

M

7:30 P

M

8:00 P

M

8:30 P

M




67%

67%

67%

67%

67%

FRID

AY

|

THU

RSDA

Y

|

W

EDN

ESDA

Y

|

TU

ESDA

Y

|

MO

NDA

Y


June 201490

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-13: Distribution of Classrooms by Day and Time, Health SciencesWICHE and CEFPI recognizes 67% as the target utilization rate. In Health Sciences classrooms, the peaks and valleys throughout the day are rather jagged, indicating a flexible schedule with minimal uniformity. This makes spotting trends difficult, as there are no clear peak times throughout the day. Friday shows the lowest overall use with very few classes held on Fridays after 2:30 p.m.(Source: WICHE. Higher Education Facilities Planning and Management Manuals. Manual Two: Classroom and Class Laboratory Facilities.Source: CEFPI. Space Planning for Institutions of Higher Education. Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)


C:\Users\elizabeth.schultz\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\ZR6G187D\5-13 distribution of classrooms by day and time health sciences.xlsxHealth Sciences

7:30 A

M

8:00 A

M

8:30 A

M

9:00 A

M

9:30 A

M

10:00

AM

10:30

AM

11:00

AM

11:30

AM

12:00

PM

12:30

PM

1:00 P

M

1:30 P

M

2:00 P

M

2:30 P

M

3:00 P

M

3:30 P

M

4:00 P

M

4:30 P

M

5:00 P

M

5:30 P

M

6:00 P

M

6:30 P

M

7:00 P

M

7:30 P

M

8:00 P

M

8:30 P

M




67%

67%

67%

67%

67%

FRID

AY

|

THU

RSDA

Y

|

W

EDN

ESDA

Y

|

TU

ESDA

Y

|

MO

NDA

Y


June 201491

The standard scheduling blocks at the UW are 50 minutes beginning on the half hour, though the number of meetings per week varies. About 62 percent of courses are scheduled in standard time blocks. Courses meeting outside of the scheduling blocks decrease utilization, causing empty time before and after the course.

Figure 5-14 shows the multiple time blocks that were scheduled in Upper Campus classrooms on Mondays only, by each College/School. The dark blue bars represent the standard blocks beginning on the half-hour and ending at 20 minutes past the hour. The light blue bars are all of the other scheduling scenarios that occurred during the quarter.

For many classes, a longer duration is pedagogically appropriate and scheduling accommodations should be made for these courses. Non-standard blocks that clearly span two full standard blocks allow other courses to neatly schedule around them. The 50-minute classes that straddle two standard blocks are more problematic and challenge the scheduling process and utilization.

MONDAYCourses by Time Block

TotalCourses

21

144 5 2 1 1

2 1 1 11 13 1 1 4 8

7 1 1 2 1 1 1134 1 21 4 1 2

2 111 1 2

2 1 1 1 1135 1 18 9 1 1 1 3

9 3 11 23 1 4 14 1

2130 15 6 1 1

6 1 1 116 1 2

3 1 192 1 15 5 1 1

7 21 25 1 2 2 1

3 154 12 3 1 1 1

14 1 2 1 146 3 1 13 1

4 132 1 1 11 1 1 4

6 2 1 1 11 14 5 3 1 1 1

1 11 1 2

14 2 743 1 7 1 8 2

1 1

School of

NursingCollege of Arts & Sciences

College of Built

Environments

College of Education College of Engineering College of the

EnvironmentEvans School of

Public Affairs

11

School of Public Health

School of Social Work

903 9 10 145 47 8 50 2

Foster School of Business

Graduate Interdisci-

plinary Programs

Informa-tion

School

Intercollege or

Interschool Programs

School of

Medicine

3 13 3 1 5

1:30

to 2

:30

2:30

to 3

:30

3:30

to 4

:30

7:30

to 8

:30

8:30

to 9

:30

9:30

to 1

0:30

10:3

0 to

11:

3011

:30

to 1

2:30

12:3

0 to

1:3

0

Figure 5-14: Actual Time Block Use on Mondays, Upper CampusMany 50-minute courses are scheduled in standard blocks beginning on the half-hour, represented by dark blue bars. Non-standard blocks are shown as light blue. The number of courses in each time block is shown. Ideally, courses scheduled for longer than 50 minutes should begin and end in sync with standard blocks (scheduled as “double blocks”).(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)


June 201492

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-15: Mary Gates Hall 228This classroom was reasonably well-scheduled throughout the week and accommodates unique time blocks on multiple days. Several courses were shaded green, which indicates the seat occupancy during that class was within an appropriate range of 60 to 75 percent.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Figure 5-16: Health Sciences T478A variety of time blocks are shown in this classroom, with open time throughout the week. Health Sciences often holds events and testing sessions in classrooms, and may have filled in the available time with these activities. The majority of courses are below the seat occupancy guideline, though there are several that are above the target occupancy.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

In order to understand the scheduling patterns in individual classrooms, graphic scheduling summaries for each classroom were created and are included in the Appendix. These show actual scheduling throughout the day and week, along with individual course enrollments for all classes held in each room. The graphics also identify the key classroom data elements and findings for each classroom. Figure 5-15 and Figure 5-16 show sample room graphic from Mary Gates Hall 228 and Health Sciences T 478. Each classroom is individually represented in the Appendix.

Conference Room8263523.6

TIME MON TUES WED THURS FRI

76% to 100% Above guidelineGreater than 100%

Percent seats occupied when room is scheduled.1% to 59% Below Guideline60 to 75% At or near guideline of 67%

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

4203:00 PM

314:00 PM

275:00 PM

20 201:00 PM

13 132:00 PM

1010:00 AM

11:00 AM19 19

12:00 PM

% Hours Used: 53%

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

7229

9:00 AM

12

SF/Seat:DAY

# of Hours: 21.00% Seats Occupied: 66%

Seats:

Magnuson Health Sciences Center TRoom T478

Space Type:Square Feet:

Classroom9353526.7

TIME MON TUES WED THURS FRI

Below GuidelineAt or near guideline of 67%Above guideline

Greater than 100%

Seats:

1% to 59%60 to 75%

76% to 100%

Percent seats occupied when room is scheduled.

Mary Gates Hall228

Space Type:Square Feet:

SF/Seat:DAY

# of Hours: 22.67% Seats Occupied: 63%

% Hours Used: 57%

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

409:00 AM

23 1210:00 AM

3425

3425

11:00 AM

17 1712:00 PM

1423 17

1:00 PM

25 22 252:00 PM

243:00 PM

1716 234:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM


June 201493

Summary of Utilization Rates

The following tables summarize seat occupancy and utilization rates by classroom capacity and by building. Four tables are shown: the first two are for classrooms with 70 or fewer seats for Upper Campus and Health Sciences, the last two for classrooms with greater than 70 seats on each campus. Individual classroom results are shown in the Appendix.

For classrooms with 70 or fewer seats, the overall average for seat occupancy is exactly at the two-thirds guideline with 67 percent on Upper Campus. Classrooms in the 21 to 30 seat category had the highest seat occupancy with 71 percent, while rooms with 61 to 70 seats had the lowest seat occupancy with 58 percent. The Music Building had the lowest average seat occupancy with 35 percent and the Physics-Astronomy Building had the highest with 85 percent. On average, classrooms on Upper Campus with fewer than 70 seats had a 55 percent room hour utilization, with no size category meeting the target of two-thirds use. Because the scheduling office indicated significant challenges in finding classrooms in which to schedule, the low utilization percentage average is most likely a result of small scheduling gaps throughout the day and week that reduce efficiency. Rooms with one to 20 seats show the lowest use, with just 39 percent of available hours scheduled.

Of interest is the relatively low room hour utilization (58%) of classrooms with 61 to 70 seats because there is an overall high demand for rooms of this size. Low use in this category indicates these classrooms may be undesirable in location, technology, or amenities. The building with the lowest room hour utilization was the Fisheries Teaching and Research Building with 10 percent. Three buildings have the highest average utilization of 67 percent for classrooms under 70 seats: Bagley Hall, PACCAR Hall, and Savery Hall.


June 201494

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-17: Summary of Utilization Rates, Upper Campus, by Building, 70 or fewer seatsUpper Campus classrooms with 70 or fewer seats have been summarized, showing number of classrooms in each size category, average room hour utilization, and average seat occupancy. Totals have been summarized by building and by classroom capacity range.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Main Campus GA Classrooms < = 70 seats

Seats per Room by Building 1 to 2021 to

3031 to

4041 to

5051 to

6061 to

70 Classrooms

Avg. Room Hour

UtilizationAvg. Seat

OccupancyAnderson Hall 2 2 54% 74%Architecture Hall 1 1 2 58% 66%Art Building 2 1 1 4 64% 74%Bagley Hall 3 3 67% 78%Blodel Hall 2 2 39% 73%Benson Hall 2 1 3 63% 64%Condon Hall 3 3 5 2 13 41% 69%Chemistry Lab Building 2 1 3 61% 71%Clark Hall 3 3 58% 53%Communications Building 1 1 3 1 6 59% 62%Dempsey Hall 1 2 4 7 62% 79%Denny Hall 9 9 3 1 22 57% 68%Electrical Engineering Building 4 2 2 8 61% 63%Eagleson Hall 0 n/a n/aBank of America Executive Education Center 0 n/a n/aFishery Sciences 1 1 1 3 32% 51%Fisheries Teaching and Research Building 1 1 2 10% 70%Gould Hall 1 1 1 3 48% 76%Guggenheim Hall 1 1 2 48% 72%Gowen Hall 0 n/a n/aHitchcock Hall 1 1 62% 53%Johnson Hall 2 1 1 4 66% 58%Kane Hall 0 n/a n/aLoew Hall 12 1 8 21 58% 69%Marine Sciences Building 1 1 16% 50%

Mechanical Engineering Building 1 7 1 3 12 52% 64%Mary Gates Hall 3 8 8 1 20 60% 71%Miller Hall 1 2 3 55% 69%More Hall 1 3 4 53% 55%Mueller Hall 1 1 2 61% 77%Music Building 1 2 1 4 44% 35%

Oceanography Teaching Building 0 n/a n/aOdegaard Library 1 1 37% 84%Physics-Astronomy Auditorium 1 1 2 47% 72%Physics-Astronomy Building 2 2 54% 85%Parrington Hall 8 3 1 12 48% 72%PACCAR Hall 2 3 5 67% 76%Raitt Hall 1 1 1 3 57% 57%Savery Hall 4 10 5 19 67% 67%Sieg Hall 1 3 1 2 7 50% 69%Smith Hall 2 1 7 3 13 52% 69%Social Work/Speech and Hearing Sciences Building 2 3 4 1 10 45% 65%Thompson Hall 2 8 1 3 14 63% 62%Winkenwerder Forest Sciences Laboratory 1 1 66% 57%

Total Classrooms 28 94 58 48 13 8 249

Avg. Room Hour Utilization 39% 57% 57% 57% 62% 58% 55%

Avg. Seat Occupancy 63% 71% 69% 65% 64% 58% 67%


June 201495

Health Sciences had an average seat occupancy of 56 percent, which is below the two-thirds seat fill target. Classrooms in the 21 to 30 seat category had the highest seat occupancy on Health Sciences as well, with 57 percent and the 41 to 50 seat category showed lowest occupancy with 52 percent. Magnuson Health Science Center I had an average occupancy rate above the guideline with 69 percent and the R-wing had the lowest rate with 48 percent.

Health Sciences classrooms display room hour utilization of less than the 67 percent target in all rooms with fewer than 70 seats. On average, these classrooms were scheduled for 24 percent of the available hours on Health Sciences. The most highly-scheduled rooms fell in the 41 to 50 seat category with 46 percent utilization, and the least scheduled were classrooms with one to 20 seats at 13 percent. The classroom in the I-wing also had the highest room hour utilization with 39 percent, while South Campus Center had the lowest with 12 percent.

Health Sciences uses classrooms for study sessions, testing, and other academic sessions, though only courses were analyzed as part of this study. The UW should review the need for rooms to support academically-related sessions and may choose to lower the target utilization rate for courses to accommodate other curricular needs.HS Campus GA Classrooms < = 70 seats

Seats per Room by Building 1 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 Classrooms

Avg. Room Hour


OccupancyMagnuson Health Sciences A 0 n/a n/aMagnuson Health Sciences B 1 1 2 16% 60%Magnuson Health Sciences D 0 n/a n/aMagnuson Health Sciences E 2 1 3 24% 55%Magnuson Health Sciences I 1 1 39% 69%Magnuson Health Sciences K 0 n/a n/aMagnuson Health Sciences R 1 1 29% 48%Magnuson Health Sciences T 3 5 2 2 12 38% 56%South Campus Center 7 4 1 1 13 12% 53%

Total Classrooms 12 12 4 3 1 32

Avg. Room Hour Utilization 13% 25% 38% 46% 30% 24%

Avg. Seat Occupancy 56% 57% 55% 52% 65% 56%

Figure 5-18: Summary of Utilization Rates, Health Sciences, by Building, 70 or fewer seatsHealth Sciences classrooms with 70 or fewer seats have been summarized, showing number of classrooms in each size category, average room hour utilization, and average seat occupancy. Totals have been summarized by building and by classroom capacity range.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)


June 201496

5.0 Utilization

For the larger classrooms with over 70 seats, the overall average seat occupancy was 64 percent on Upper Campus, just below the target rate. In large classrooms, the seat occupancy rate can be comfortably higher than 67 percent, since the magnitude of seats provides greater flexibility in adding students if necessary. The larger auditoria on Upper Campus show high seat occupancy combined with high room hour utilization, indicating a clear need for rooms of this size. The one classroom in Guggenheim Hall with 345 seats had 91 percent seat occupancy, the highest for both size category and building. By category, the lowest average use was determined to be in classrooms in the 71 to 80 seat range with 54 percent. Classrooms in the Music Building showed lowest seat occupancy at 35 percent.

Room hour utilization rates for rooms with more than 70 seats on Upper Campus ranged from 53 percent in rooms with 91 to 100 seats to 83 percent in Kane Auditorium with 720 seats. In general, classrooms with more than 70 seats show room hour utilization rates in the target range. By building, the classroom in Fishery Sciences had the lowest average utilization with 32 percent and the classrooms in Kane Hall had the highest with 74 percent.


June 201497

Figure 5-19: Summary of Utilization Rates, Upper Campus, by Building, greater than 70 seatsUpper Campus classrooms with more than 70 have been summarized, showing number of classrooms in each size category, average room hour utilization, and average seat occupancy. Totals have been summarized by building and by classroom capacity range.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)Main Campus GA Classrooms > 70 seats

Seats per Room by Building71 to

8081 to

9091 to 100

101 to 125

126 to 150

151 to 175

176 to 200

201 to 250 265 290 305 345 440 720 Classrooms

Avg. Room Hour


OccupancyAnderson Hall 1 1 71% 62%Architecture Hall 1 1 68% 58%Art Building 0 n/a n/aBagley Hall 2 1 1 4 66% 71%Blodel Hall 0 n/a n/aBenson Hall 0 n/a n/aCondon Hall 1 1 43% 70%Chemistry Lab Building 0 n/a n/aClark Hall 0 n/a n/aCommunications Building 1 1 54% 69%Dempsey Hall 2 2 58% 64%Denny Hall 0 n/a n/aElectrical Engineering Building 1 1 2 61% 66%Eagleson Hall 1 1 71% 63%Bank of America Executive Education Center 1 1 72% 64%Fishery Sciences 1 1 32% 55%Fisheries Teaching and Research Building 0 n/a n/aGould Hall 1 1 53% 50%Guggenheim Hall 1 1 70% 91%Gowen Hall 1 1 2 68% 70%Hitchcock Hall 1 1 56% 57%Johnson Hall 1 1 2 71% 67%Kane Hall 3 1 1 5 74% 72%Loew Hall 0 n/a n/aMarine Sciences Building 0 n/a n/a

Mechanical Engineering Building 1 1 68% 64%Mary Gates Hall 1 1 2 68% 74%Miller Hall 1 1 58% 61%More Hall 1 1 2 70% 56%Mueller Hall 1 1 53% 51%Music Building 1 1 2 55% 35%

Oceanography Teaching Building 1 1 38% 56%Odegaard Library 1 1 53% 78%Physics-Astronomy Auditorium 2 1 1 4 63% 52%Physics-Astronomy BuildingParrington HallPACCAR Hall 3 1 4 69% 60%Raitt Hall 1 1 44% 54%Savery Hall 1 1 2 68% 61%Sieg Hall 1 1 70% 69%Smith Hall 1 1 1 1 1 5 60% 57%Social Work/Speech and Hearing Sciences Building 0 n/a n/aThompson Hall 1 1 2 70% 58%Winkenwerder Forest Sciences Laboratory 0 n/a n/a

Total Classrooms 11 10 6 5 5 3 4 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 57

Avg. Room Hour Utilization 62% 65% 53% 66% 57% 61% 67% 67% 60% 73% 68% 70% 78% 83% 63%

Avg. Seat Occupancy 54% 61% 60% 68% 64% 74% 62% 56% 54% 74% 58% 91% 81% 77% 64%


June 201498

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-20: Summary of Utilization Rates, Health Sciences, by Building, greater than 70 seatsHealth Sciences classrooms with more than 70 seats have been summarized, showing number of classrooms in each size category, average room hour utilization, and average seat occupancy. Totals have been summarized by building and by classroom capacity range.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Health Sciences classrooms with greater than 70 seats utilize both seats and hours at about half of the available capacity, with 47 and 48 percent, respectively. The 482-seat auditorium in Magnuson Health Sciences A shows the lowest seat occupancy and room hour utilization by both size category and building. Classrooms in the 101 to 125 range have the highest seat occupancy by category with 55 percent and room hour utilization with 57 percent. Those located in the T-wing have the highest seat occupancy by building with 54 percent and room hour utilization with 59 percent. The larger rooms on Health Sciences are often used for other purposes, such as testing and events, and the seat occupancy rate for those sessions is not reflected in this analysis. HS Campus GA Classrooms >70 seats

Seats per Room by Building 91 to 100 101 to 125 151 to 175 176 to 200 201 to 250 482 Classrooms

Avg. Room Hour


OccupancyMagnuson Health Sciences A 1 1 23% 22%Magnuson Health Sciences B 0 n/a n/aMagnuson Health Sciences D 1 1 54% 38%Magnuson Health Sciences E 0 n/a n/aMagnuson Health Sciences I 0 n/a n/aMagnuson Health Sciences K 1 1 36% 29%Magnuson Health Sciences R 0 n/a n/aMagnuson Health Sciences T 4 2 1 7 59% 54%South Campus Center 1 1 0% 0%

Total Classrooms 1 5 1 2 1 1 11

Avg. Room Hour Utilization 36% 57% 54% 48% 33% 23% 48%

Avg. Seat Occupancy 29% 55% 38% 53% 50% 22% 47%


June 201499

Figure 5-21: Distribution of Courses by College/School and BuildingClassroom location was analyzed for all courses in each College/School to determine whether the preponderance of courses were held in a single building. For each College/School, the highest percentage of courses has been highlighted, to identify connections with specific buildings.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Many of the Colleges/Schools have a “home” building in which the majority or significant percentage of courses are taught. Others have greater distribution among campus buildings, with no clear building identity based on course locations (Figure 5-21).

University of Washington Distribution of Courses byCollege/School and Building

BuildingAnderson Hall 1.0% 0.3% 3.7% 2.5% 2.7% 0.9%Architecture Hall 0.9% 26.1% 2.6% 0.3% 0.9% 2.3% 0.9%Art Building 1.8% 0.8% 4.7% 1.4%Bagley Hall 4.2% 2.6% 0.8% 1.9% 1.7% 3.0%Bloedel Hall 1.2% 0.8%Benson Hall 1.1% 2.6% 3.8% 0.9% 1.7% 1.2%Condon Hall 3.9% 5.3% 0.5% 0.9% 2.5% 2.8%Chemistry Library Building 2.3% 2.8% 1.6%Clark Hall 0.5% 44.8% 1.1%Communications Building 2.8% 0.3% 0.9% 8.3% 2.1% 2.0%Dempsey Hall 1.1% 0.8% 2.5% 45.0% 2.3% 2.4%Denny Hall 8.7% 10.5% 2.8% 10.0% 2.5% 8.3% 4.7% 1.3% 2.0% 6.4%Electrical Engineering Building 1.7% 21.0% 0.9% 2.3% 1.7% 1.3% 3.4%Eagleson Hall 0.5% 0.3%Executive Education Center 0.1% 5.3% 3.3% 2.3% 0.3%Fishery Sciences 0.5% 2.6% 8.4% 3.4% 0.7%Fisheries Teaching and Research 0.2% 0.9% 0.2%Gould Hall 0.7% 52.2% 0.5% 1.9% 1.0% 0.9%Guggenheim Hall 0.4% 4.1% 1.9% 1.3% 0.8%Gowen Hall 0.7% 5.3% 1.9% 0.6%Hitchcock Hall 1.0% 0.7%Magnuson Health Sciences A 2.7% 0.0%Magnuson Health Sciences B 1.3% 5.4% 2.1% 0.2%Magnuson Health Sciences D 1.7% 14.0% 1.3% 5.4% 3.1% 0.4%Magnuson Health Sciences E 5.2% 13.5% 7.3% 0.4%Magnuson Health Sciences I 5.2% 1.3% 2.7% 5.2% 0.3%Magnuson Health Sciences K 8.3% 2.6% 2.9% 5.2% 0.3%Magnuson Health Sciences R 8.0% 2.6% 2.9% 1.0% 0.2%Magnuson Health Sciences T 0.1% 33.3% 3.4% 78.0% 75.3% 67.6% 74.3% 49.0% 5.7%Johnson Hall 1.6% 4.3% 4.4% 19.6% 2.5% 2.3% 1.7% 2.1% 2.3%Kane Hall 1.7% 8.7% 0.5% 2.8% 1.7% 1.3% 1.4%Loew Hall 7.2% 5.3% 8.5% 5.6% 5.9%Marine Studies Building 0.9% 0.1%Mechanical Engineering Building 3.7% 2.6% 9.3% 2.8% 4.7% 1.7% 3.7%Mary Gates Hall 7.5% 13.2% 17.8% 9.3% 10.0% 25.0% 55.8% 17.2% 1.3% 8.5%Miller Hall 1.5% 13.2% 1.9% 1.2%More Hall 0.7% 10.7% 1.0% 1.6%Mueller Hall 0.7% 4.6% 2.8% 1.7% 2.9% 1.1%Music Building 3.1% 2.6% 0.9% 2.1%Oceanography Teaching Building 0.1% 4.3% 0.9% 3.4% 0.2%Odegaard Undergraduate Library 0.2% 0.3% 7.5% 9.3% 2.1% 0.4%Physics-Astronomy Auditorium 3.2% 0.5% 0.9% 1.7% 2.3%Physics-Astronomy Building 1.6% 0.3% 1.9% 1.2%Parrington Hall 3.1% 2.6% 0.9% 47.5% 0.8% 4.7% 2.0% 2.8%PACCAR Hall 1.5% 0.5% 0.9% 5.0% 47.5% 8.3% 2.8%Raitt Hall 1.2% 2.6% 0.5% 2.3% 0.9%Savery Hall 8.9% 7.9% 3.0% 3.7% 5.0% 0.8% 8.3% 1.7% 1.0% 6.7%Sieg Hall 3.0% 4.3% 2.2% 0.9% 2.3% 1.0% 2.3%Smith Hall 6.7% 13.2% 0.8% 0.9% 5.0% 2.3% 4.0% 4.9%South Campus Center 5.2% 3.9% 17.1% 15.6% 0.8%Social Work/Speech and Hearing Building 1.2% 0.3% 92.0% 2.1%Thomson Hall 6.1% 1.9% 1.9% 2.3% 1.0% 100.0% 4.5%Winkenwerder Froest Sciences Laboratory 0.2% 0.5% 4.7% 0.3%TOTAL, ALL BUILDINGS 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Evans School of

Public Affairs

College of Arts and Sciences

College of Built

EnvironmentsCollege of Education

College of Engineering

College of the

Environment

TOTAL, ALL

SCHOOLS

Foster School of Business

Graduate Interdiscipl

inary Programs

Information School

Intercollege or

Interschool Programs

School of Dentistry

School of Medicine

School of Nursing

School of Pharmacy

School of Public Health

School of Social Work

Undergraduate Interdisciplinary

Programs

DRAFT April 2014


June 2014100

5.0 Utilization

5.4 Recommendations

There are three key variables in the space utilization equation, as noted previously: square footage per seat, weekly hours of use, and seat occupancy. A change in any one of these variables has an effect on one or both of the remaining two variables. The inherent assumptions associated with these three variables also influence instructional space demand.

This section proposes the number and size of classrooms needed at the UW as compared to the existing classroom inventory. Non-capital options for meeting this demand are also explored.

Classroom Analysis Methodology

At the outset of this study, pertinent course scheduling data for Autumn 2013 quarter was collected from the Registrar/Scheduling Office. The data set included the name of the course, meeting days and times, course location, and the number of students enrolled (based on “frozen” enrollments following add/drop period) for all courses on Upper and Health Sciences campuses. Questions, issues, and caveats regarding the content of the data were clarified with the Registrar/Scheduling Office as needed prior to the detailed analysis stage.

An instructional space inventory extracted from the SIMS database was provided by the Office of Capital and Space Planning and cross-checked with the Registrar/Scheduling Office. This space inventory documented space type, square footage, and seating capacity on a room-by-room basis.

Using Autumn 2013 course schedule data, calculations were made to compare and contrast internal instructional space utilization patterns against generally accepted guidelines for three distinct measures of utilization.

Seat SizeSeat size refers to the average amount of square footage available per student seat. This is calculated by dividing the total square footage per room by the total seat count. An average of 20 to 25 square feet per seat is recommended in typical flat floor classroom spaces. This figure can be lower or higher, depending upon classroom type/configuration, furniture, total seating capacity, and technology. Large lecture halls may work with 10 square feet per seat, whereas an active learning classroom or classroom may require upwards of 40 square feet per seat, depending upon room capacity.

The seat size metric is most applicable when calculating total square footage needs for classrooms and for a right-sizing exercise, described later in this section.

Weekly Room Hour Utilization RateThe weekly room hour utilization rate refers to the proportion of time classrooms are actually scheduled for courses relative to the total number of hours the classrooms are available. The ratio is calculated as the number of hours scheduled for coursework divided by the weekly scheduling window. The weekly scheduling window is the hours each week that are defined as potentially schedulable. At UW, the weekly scheduling window is Monday through Friday,


June 2014101

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., equating to 40 hours per week. It is important to note that this window should be defined with the assumption that courses can and will be held during these hours, with the understanding that there will be some hours that are more popular than others.

The goal is to schedule 67 percent of available hours within the scheduling window where general-purpose classrooms are concerned. The primary reason for this is that there are various course enrollments, classroom sizes, and room amenities and a perfect “match” cannot always be made in every time period. The two-thirds utilization rate allows for this, as well as other scheduling exceptions, thereby maximizing potential matches between course needs and available classrooms. A two-thirds occupancy rate also permits access for maintenance, frees up classroom space for events, allows time to “air out” the classrooms between use, and provides additional scheduling flexibility throughout the semester.

The 67 percent average room hour utilization target is generally accepted as an efficient ratio and parallels similar planning guidelines in use in many other states.

Seat Occupancy RateThe seat occupancy rate refers to the proportion of instructional seats that are occupied when the room is scheduled, relative to the total seat capacity of that classroom. When occupied, it is suggested that 67 percent of the available classroom seats be filled, on average. Since this is an average, lower and higher occupancy rates will exist on a room-by-room basis.

The two-thirds rate has been found to be an efficient average where course sizes are not entirely predictable. As is the case with the weekly scheduling window, the seat occupancy rates proposed here reflect industry standards in consistent use elsewhere.

Recommended Classrooms

Demand for classrooms on the Upper Campus and Health Sciences is driven by day courses, with peak use between 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday. The perception of classroom demand may be influenced by many factors. Particular classrooms may be more desirable because of location or available technology, for instance. This may make scheduling seem tight for the most desirable classrooms and times.

A total classroom need of 260 rooms was determined for Upper Campus. The 306 classrooms meet this need in total number. However, the size of the proposed classrooms does not line up with the existing inventory, particularly in the need for seminar rooms with 20 or fewer seats, and classrooms in the 51 to 60 and 61 to 70-seat categories.

The Active Learning Classrooms (ALC) supports the collaborative, technology-rich environment that is the trend in teaching and learning spaces. These are new to the UW, and have been well-received by the faculty. The campus is currently gathering feedback to understand use, benefits, challenges, and ideas of these rooms. The appropriate number of ALCs is impacted by many factors, including faculty demand and academic goals of the campus. The


June 2014102

5.0 Utilization

recommendation is to continue to encourage faculty to design an interactive curriculum to take full advantage of the features in the ALCs. Creating additional ALCs would require a more robust training and support program, using the Center for Teaching and Learning’s current model as a baseline.

Health Sciences requires 20 classrooms to meet course demand, as compared to the existing 43 rooms. The current rooms meet this demand in size, with the exception of the need for a lecture hall with 251 to 300 seats. This need can be met with the existing room in the 401 to 500-seat category. It is understood that classrooms in Health Sciences serve many purposes, including study sessions and regularly-scheduled standardized tests. Analyzing these additional events that are different non-course activities on upper campus, was outside the scope of this study, and classroom need was determined using the course schedule. Health Sciences could further analyze event and testing use, and may consider re-purposing some spaces to exclusively serve some of these events to ease the scheduling demand on general-assignment classrooms.

Figure 5-22 summarizes the existing classrooms and proposed distribution by seating capacity.

Figure 5-22: Recommended Classrooms by SizeWhile the total number of classrooms on both the Upper and Health Sciences Campuses is adequate, the current capacity distribution does not satisfy need. Classroom recommendations shown here assume the 40-hour weekly scheduling window continues, and 67 percent of those hours are scheduled for courses.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis/recommendations)


June 2014103

Right-Sizing

A key observation is that many of the classrooms fall below the recommended square feet per seat guideline, with too many seats relative to the size of the room. Typical classrooms with fewer than 70 seats should have a seat size of 20 to 25 ASF per seat. Many classrooms at the UW were under the target seat size based on some key factors. To relieve this, classrooms can be adjusted, or “right-sized,” by physically removing seats to achieve the target of 20 to 25 square feet per seat. Conversely, some rooms exceed the target, making them candidates for the addition of seats in order to align them with the target. Any adjustment in classroom seating capacity would also impact the overall distribution of current classroom capacities.

To address this, a hypothetical right-sizing exercise was conducted for the UW’s classrooms. First, classrooms were reviewed to identify those with movable furniture which provides the ability to easily decant chairs. Room type was also considered, as larger classrooms achieve greater efficiency with a lower station size. The rooms with movable seating were adjusted to provide an average seat size of 22 square feet per seat. There were some exceptions to this multiplier based on room and furniture type, requiring a higher or lower seat size, though the majority of classrooms were right-sized at 22 square feet per seat. It was assumed that the capacities of those classrooms with fixed seating would remain constant.

Right-sizing classrooms offers flexibility in configuration, the ability to comfortably accommodate a suite of technology, and allows for “breathing room.” This also offers an opportunity to meet a portion of classroom demand with the existing inventory of rooms with a non-capital option. Right-sizing cannot be implemented in isolation, as it would impact the University’s ability to schedule. Instead, it should be accomplished in conjunction with modification to the overall classroom mix through the phasing and implementation plan, in a subsequent phase of this study. Figure 23 and Figure 24 display the results of the right-sizing exercise relative to current and proposed classrooms on Upper Campus and Health Sciences.

Figure 5-23: Existing, Right-Sized, and Proposed Classrooms, Upper CampusFor each size category, current classrooms on Upper Campus are shown relative to existing classrooms if they were right-sized. The calculated classroom need for each range is shown to compare against the current and right-sized inventory. There is a disparity between physical facilities and need for classrooms with 51 to 60 and 61 to 70 seats.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)


EXISTING CLASSROOM INVENTORY: UPPER CAMPUS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-125

126-150

151-175

176-200

201-250

251-300

301-350

351-400

401-500

501-600

601-700

701-800

Current 28 94 58 48 13 8 11 10 6 5 5 3 4 7 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 Right-Sized 50 104 48 25 9 11 12 6 7 7 7 3 4 7 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 Need 58 61 45 16 17 26 4 3 8 5 3 2 4 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1



Classroom Need: 260

Feb 2014


June 2014104

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-25: Noise LevelNearly half of searches were for silent study space, closely followed by an area with some background noise.(Data Source: UW-IT, Academic & Collaborative Applications, SpaceScout data Winter & Spring 2013)

Figure 5-24: Existing, Right-Sized, and Proposed Classrooms, Health SciencesFor each size category, current classrooms on the Health Sciences Campus are shown relative to existing classrooms if they were right-sized. The calculated classroom need for each range is shown to compare against the current and right-sized inventory. Classrooms are currently used for events and testing sessions somewhat unique to Health Sciences. Classroom need is based on course demand only, and does not account for other uses.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis)

Informal Learning Spaces

Students acquire a significant amount of their learning – upwards of 70 percent – outside of the classroom. With a curriculum including group projects in many disciplines and the tendency for Millennial students to collaborate, the demand for informal learning spaces has grown. The UW has identified this trend and has developed an app that allows students to locate informal learning spaces by type, building, size, amenities, and other characteristics. The app, named SpaceScout, was introduced over the past couple of years, and related analytics have recently become available. Key search filters for Winter and Spring 2013 are summarized in Figure 5-25 to Figure 5-29.


EXISTING CLASSROOM INVENTORY: HEALTH SCIENCES

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-125 126-150 151-175 176-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-500 Current 12 12 4 3 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 Right-Sized 16 9 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 Need 7 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0



Classroom Need (Course Demand): 20

Feb 2014


June 2014105

University of Washington 6

DRAFT 38 April 2014

Figure X: Amenities

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Number ofSearches

Formatted: Not Highlight

Figure 5-27: AmenitiesOutlets were the most important amenity within the room. The ability to reserve the space was also critical.(Data Source: UW-IT, Academic & Collaborative Applications, SpaceScout data Winter & Spring 2013)

Figure 5-26: Type of SpaceThe majority of searches were for a study room or study area. Study spaces were more popular than classroom-type rooms and more public spaces.(Data Source: UW-IT, Academic & Collaborative Applications, SpaceScout data Winter & Spring 2013)


June 2014106

5.0 Utilization

Figure 5-29: CapacityMost students searched for spaces for one person. This may be attributed to the fact that this is the default when performing a search.(Data Source: UW-IT, Academic & Collaborative Applications, SpaceScout data Winter & Spring 2013)

Figure 5-28: Top Ten Searched BuildingsPACCAR was the most searched building for informal learning spaces, followed by several library buildings.(Data Source: UW-IT, Academic & Collaborative Applications, SpaceScout data Winter & Spring 2013)

There is a desire for additional informal learning spaces to meet curricular elements of course work. The UW has a growing data source with SpaceScout that houses information about the types of spaces that are desirable to students. By understanding the key characteristics associated with student searches, the UW can identify buildings or room characteristics that best serve the students. By mining this data and by completing additional investigation into the actual use of informal learning spaces, the UW should seek to renovate or increase the number of desirable spaces in terms of size, location, and amenities.

Increase Weekly Scheduling Window

The UW scheduling window is 40 hours: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Many large universities have a 50-hour window to accommodate a full range of classes and schedules. The UW could extend the day on either end, changing the window to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. By increasing the daily window by two hours, there is a significant reduction in the need for classrooms and increases scheduling options. In turn, having fewer classrooms reduces the overall technology maintenance and capital budget.


June 2014107

Figure 5-30: Number of Classrooms Needed with Scheduling Window and Pass Time ScenariosVarious classroom need scenarios were explored using a 40- and 50-hour scheduling window and a 10- and 15-minute pass time.(Data Source: Registrar data and RA utilization analysis/recommendations)

Pass Time40-Hour

Scheduling Window50-Hour

Scheduling Window

15 Minutes 297 260

10 Minutes 260 210

An increased pass time puts a demand on the schedule, increasing the number of classrooms needed within the scheduling window. In conjunction with the previous recommendation of increasing the scheduling window, a matrix was developed with various scenarios of window and pass time. The number of classrooms needed was calculated using different combinations of these two variables (Figure 5-30). In all scenarios, a 67 percent room hour utilization was applied.

Adhere to a Block Schedule

A clearly-defined block schedule is a key element in developing an efficient scheduling practice. Offering an abundance of non-standard time blocks reduces the ability to schedule in classrooms because they take small amounts of the available time away from the schedule. For instance, a class scheduled from 10:15 to 11:05 monopolizes two standard time blocks (9:30-10:20 and 10:30-11:20) in its classroom. While some special situations are acceptable – and expected in the 67 percent room hour utilization target – too many have a major impact on scheduling.

On the flip side, extended hours of operation may increase the operational costs to physically maintain the classrooms. With any change, there may be challenges adapting to the cultural shift of classes to slightly earlier and later times.

As described earlier, there is a current need for 260 classrooms on the Upper Campus based on the existing scheduling window (and scheduling 67 percent of those hours). With a 50-hour scheduling window, the classroom need is reduced by 50 rooms – a need of 210 classrooms (demonstrated in Figure 5-30). This gives the UW additional flexibility when determining which rooms remain as classrooms, are renovated, and are re-purposed for another use.

Increase Pass Time

The size of the campus creates challenges for students in particular when they have back-to-back classes in buildings that are quite far away from each other. In the case of the UW, distance is a legitimate issue with the current 10-minute pass time. Arriving on time to class can be difficult for students and faculty if they are traveling across campus.

Increasing the pass time between classes is an option that the UW should explore to provide students and faculty ample time to get to class. A 15-minute pass time would also allow instructors additional time to set up and break down their technology for each class, and some “breathing room” to shift the students from one class out and another in. Students and faculty would have more time to interact, particularly after class when students may have questions about class material or a desire to continue the conversation outside the classroom.


June 2014108

5.0 Utilization

The UW should define clear scheduling blocks, including an assigned number of days for each block. The faculty survey indicated a desire for more two-day scheduling options, which would likely necessitate longer scheduling periods as compared to the current 50-minute standard blocks. Prior to developing a new scheduling grid, the UW may choose to further explore the possibility of shifting to a semester calendar and the uniformity of the credit structure of courses (e.g., 3-credit vs. 4-credit). Decisions made relative to these overarching topics will impact the type of block schedule that will best suit the needs of the UW.

Create Schedule Distribution Parameters

As was demonstrated previously, late morning to early afternoon, Monday through Thursday, is the peak time for classes. The scheduling office spends a significant amount of time before the start of each quarter hand-slotting courses into classrooms. Although the scheduling software is capable of performing this task, the large number of special requests – in the way of schedule and/or classroom – prohibits the software from rooming a high percentage of courses. Requests for certain classrooms, buildings, days, and times place a demand on classrooms during peak periods and make scheduling extremely challenging.

Currently, the scheduling office is responsible for accommodating the majority of requests. In order to alleviate some of this pressure, the UW should shift some of this responsibility to the individual departments. This can be accomplished through schedule distribution parameters, where each department is required to teach a defined percentage of classes during the “shoulder” times and on Fridays, which are traditionally less desirable. These more distributed scheduling requests are then submitted to the scheduling office for room placement, which provides greater flexibility to assign a classroom that best matches in terms of size, technology, amenities, and even location. By simultaneously improving the classrooms and offering an increased number of desirable rooms, there is an added incentive to teach during off-peak times.

Explore the Use of Proprietary Classrooms

There are a number of classrooms that are assigned to specific departments, also termed proprietary classrooms. These rooms are not department-specific in terms of attributes, as a laboratory would be. In this way, they could fill gaps in the need for general-assignment classrooms. If proprietary classrooms were to serve as general-assignment classrooms, the departments could continue to have priority in scheduling them. This may mean that departments choose certain times of day to “open” the classrooms to potential scheduling by the Registrar. This could be voluntary, with an incentive of a technology or renovation budget (as departments currently pay for their own upgrades to proprietary classrooms).

Through the classroom utilization analysis performed as part of this project, the UW is in the process of defining and understanding the utilization of proprietary classrooms on campus. Further analysis and discussion would be required to determine whether the UW needs or wants to bring proprietary classrooms into the portfolio.


June 2014109

Increase Programs and Visibility of the Center for Teaching and Learning

As curriculum continues to become more collaborative – with and without technology – there is a need for a more robust Center for Teaching and Learning. The existing Center provides workshops and trainings, and the existing model is an excellent baseline to further develop the offerings.

Specifically, if the UW develops more Active Learning Classrooms as a strategic academic goal, the Center would serve as a resource for instructors to receive support for technology training as well as curriculum design. As the Active Learning Classrooms see an increase in demand, the UW may require instructors to complete a workshop or training through the Center to encourage the development of pedagogy that reflects the capabilities and vision of the ALCs.

Explore Moving to a Semester Format

The current academic calendar reflects a quarter system, which presents advantages and disadvantages to faculty, staff, and students. While a number of other campuses offer a quarter-based academic calendar, many have been shifting to a semester system. During interviews, faculty and staff were generally open to semesters instead of quarters.

Academically, quarters allow faculty and students to experience a variety of courses throughout the year. On the downside, the short duration of each quarter does not provide the time to deeply explore material. There was a sense that just as a course was ramping up, it was time to wind down. From a scheduling perspective, the Registrar is tasked with rooming a full course load four times per year, rather than twice in a semester system. (The summer session in a semester format tends to have a notably lighter number of courses, resulting in a relatively simple room scheduling process.) This effort is compounded by the scheduling challenges determined through this study.

Moving to a semester-based academic calendar would require departments and instructors to update the curriculum in order to adjust for the additional weeks allocated for each course. This would enable more depth and breadth in the course material, including opportunities for collaborative learning and projects. The overall curriculum would need to be reviewed to account for fewer course options each year for students. A semester calendar would provide a platform for additional continuity among courses. A clear number of student contact hours per credit could be established, and this would be strongly supported by a standard block schedule (rather than the current variable schedules). The scheduling office would save time each year by reducing the number of times a schedule would need to be developed. Students could benefit from a semester schedule parallel to other campuses because they would be able to take a course at another institution and enter the job or internship market earlier than they currently can with the quarter calendar.


June 2014110

5.0 Utilization

June 2014111

6.0 TechnologyUniversity of Washington / Learning Space Assessment

As a framework these objectives are appropriate for UW today; they are in line with peer institutions and follow ANSI best practices. The installation costs quoted for each of these standards (shared with the assessment team privately) are roughly 35 – 50% lower than the AV/IT industry values for a similar system installed by a professional contractor in the Pacific Northwest area. This discrepancy may be an indicator of the high efficiency (and resource pressures) UW classroom technology staff (on both campuses) provide for UW internal design/install and renovation projects.

6.1 Overview

This section assesses the condition of learning space technology on both the Upper and Health Science campuses.

By first evaluating and establishing the relevant standards for evaluation, classroom technology data can be assessed and ranked according to condition. This provides a room-by-room snapshot of the state of classroom technology on the UW campus and identifies any gaps between the current conditions and UW goals. This section also investigates the current capabilities on campus to support the existing (and future) classroom technology.

6.2 Standards for Assessment

Technology Standards on Campus

The current classroom technology design intent, as described by the UW-CTE group, is summarized in the table below (Figure 6-01).

6.0 Classroom Technology Analysis and Recommendations

Figure 6-01: Summary of Current CTE Design StandardsA summary of the “best practices” design objectives and standardized classroom technology archetypes on the Upper Campus.(Data Source: Internal 2013 CTE documents, Fall 2013 CTE Staff Interviews)

June 2014112


While it is clear that UW-CTE staff intend to provide and have a mastery of all of the design elements, this table is not sufficient to communicate externally to faculty and administration what specific metrics, systems, features, and requirements have been established, such as:

• Standardized systems on campus, including: º Networked control systems compatible with the centralized Crestron

Fusion AV campus management dashboard º Manufacturer and model standards where uniformity is needed for

efficient servicing and parts store • UW specific best practices and uniform functionality / feature sets• Coordinated requirements for classroom systems, such as acoustics and

interfacing to BMS, lighting, data, power, and other related services.

A more comprehensive campus technology standard would also document policies developed in collaboration with other committees and stakeholders, including BYOD (bring your own device) / wireless classroom response and interactivity practices, active learning classrooms, and other specialized academic technologies that CTE has established on campus.

There are two particular aspects of these standards, applying to all technology enabled teaching spaces, worth highlighting: (A) HDMI cabling (and therefore HDMI enabled projectors/displays), and (B) a networked button pad or touchscreen control system (and therefore unified and standardized control connected to a central AV/IT monitoring dashboard).

Digital HDMI connections are important to deploy in systems across campus for several reasons, including:

• Modern: The AV industry has established an HDMI consortium, migrating systems over to HDMI (and other HDMI compatible digital formats such as DVI, DisplayPort, etc.) starting in 2009 and now fully deployed since December 2013. Many modern user devices, such as Apple laptops, include only a digital output

• Connectivity and User-friendliness: º The HDMI format includes HDCP – a tamper-proof copyright protection

system that prevents connection to displays if the source device (BluRay, Computer, Laptop) and the display do not follow strict protocols.

º Not backwards compatible: HDMI converters (adapters to migrate older analog standards (such as VGA) onto HDMI displays or to convert HDMI sources (such as modern laptops) to older VGA based systems) are not HDCP compliant and may not connect

• Unless HDMI signals are continuous from source to destination, AV systems can fail to display user content in ways that are not logical to the user or to field technicians.

June 2014113


Unified and standardized controls (button panel or touchscreen system control) are important for the following reasons:• Ease of use • Remote monitoring• Automated problem reporting and resolution, particularly for proactive

maintenance issues like keeping track of projector bulb lifespan and scheduling replacement before projectors critically fail during class time.

• Gathering and analyzing usage and performance statistics

While there are similarities among several clusters of classrooms in the UW Health Sciences Campus, each room is treated as a stand-alone space. Larger auditoriums are often given as priority to specific programs/departments, and over time the features of these rooms have been uniquely adapted (or not) depending on use. As such it is difficult to determine a clear, modern design standard on the Health Sciences Campus.

Designs and Installations

Recent classroom technology designs and installations by the Classroom Technology and Events (CTE) Group were reviewed during site inspections. In general the CTE group’s professionalism and final installed systems (within 2 years) meet or exceed industry standards and the finish of professionally installed systems in the Pacific Northwest market.

The HSC does not have enough recent classroom inventory for observations on current design. However, there are some classrooms (mostly large auditoriums) that were designed by a staff position that no longer exists in the UW planning/facilities office. Many of those rooms are not coherent with the practices and standards on the main campus or with current industry best practices. Other classroom spaces on the HSC have a disparate range of vintage and design or design/build provenance. Critical elements, such as control systems and user GUIs (Graphical User Interfaces), are not matched cohesively; control is different room-to-room and repair (e.g. updating control code to operate a replacement projector) may require added effort and outside expertise.

6.3 Basis for Analysis

Classroom Data

The 2013 CTE database of Upper Campus classrooms was reviewed, listing 497 teaching and learning spaces including both those centrally scheduled and those that “belong” to schools or departments. A high-level analysis is included below, while the database detail is appended to this report:497 Total classrooms• 25 proprietary or departmental (not included in this assessment) • 306 In service as General Assignment Classrooms:

º 54 up to date, no technology renovation required prior to 2019 º 82 in need of technology renovation by 2019 º 170 others in critical need of renovation or install:

- 84 are serviced with AV on carts - 36 have no AV installed - 50 rooms with obsolete technology or in failing condition

June 2014114


In addition to the classroom assessment data, the CTE group is engaging in a process of sophisticated data gathering and statistical analysis on classroom systems that are connected to the central CTE management system. This process is building detailed information (such as utilization, cost/benefit, and common error marking) on campus technology use for CTE to refine its design and more appropriately allocate resources.

In the Fall of 2013 the Health Sciences Academic Services and Facilities (HSAS&F) and Health Sciences Room Reservations (HSSR) groups completed a template spreadsheet provided by the analysis team. A high-level analysis is included in the sidebar, while the database detail is appended to this report: 83 Total classrooms• 40 departmental, dedicated assignment, or reserved event places (not

included in this assessment)• 43 in service as General Assignment Classrooms

º 1 up to date, no technology renovation required prior to 2019 º 12 in need of technology renovation by 2019 º 30 others in critical need of renovation or install:

- 2 are serviced with AV on carts - 1 has no AV installed - 27 rooms with obsolete technology or in failing condition

Classroom Inspection / Data Validation

A representative sampling of teaching spaces was surveyed in late Fall 2013 for both the Upper Campus and the Health Sciences Campus.

Based on site inspections, the CTE catalog of the Upper Campus is reasonably precise and accurate.

UW HSC data was entered by Health Sciences Academic Services and Facilities staff into a template provided by the assessment team. Based on initial inspection the Health Sciences data was then revised by UW Health Sciences staff for precision (detail of information) and accuracy. Subsequent to an initial round of data correction by UW, the conditions of several rooms continued to be in conflict with the information entered into the spreadsheet. While the information is sufficient to assess classroom technology, it may be necessary for the HSC HSSR and HSAS&F groups to compile inventory information into a field-verified classroom database for improved service and asset management.

Evaluation Criteria: Technology in Classrooms

The presence, condition, and type of technology in every general assignment classroom were evaluated according to a universal set of criteria, including: installation, standards, age, connectivity, management, suitability to space and utilization (Figure 6-02).

June 2014115


The ratings for each space, both on individual criteria and overall, are appended to this report as an Appendix.

Based on this scored evaluation classrooms were sorted into one of three conditions: “Current” (Score: 5, good past 2019), “Upgrade Due” (Score: 3-4, a significant system renovation is required on or before 2019), and “Critically in need of Update” (Score: 1-2, needs immediate attention).

Score Criteria

5 • Fixed installation • Consistent with current UW standard and/or best practices • All components/integration < 3 years old • Supports HDMI and VGA connectivity • Connected to the central CTE management dashboard • Appropriately sized, or maximized for architectural conditions

4 • Fails on one of the criteria for a room with a score of 5

3 • Fails on more than two criteria for a room with a score of 5 OR

• Fails on one or more criteria for a room with a score of 5 • Portions of the installed system are aged 5 years or more

OR • The system is greater than 5 years of age

2 • The room is served by an AV Cart OR

• Reported as highly problematic based on focus group interviews • Fails on one or more criteria for a room with a score of 5 • Portions of the installed system are aged 7 years or more

OR • The system is aged 7 years or more • Portions of the system are aged 10 years or more

1 • No AV system is installed OR

• AV system is inoperable

Figure 6-03: Technology Scoring MethodologyA summary of the scoring system used to rank evaluated classrooms.

Good Bad

Installation Fixed in place and integrated in the room No AV, served with a cart, cabling not meeting BICSi or NSCA/Infocomm/ANSI Standards, or a system that has been partially renovated and includes mismatched components

Standards Consistent with established (or de-facto) standard, or a pilot room

Inconsistent, technology “island,” not belonging to any standard

Age Within (good) life-cycle policy Outdated, beyond typical equipment mean time between failures

Connectivity Both analog (VGA) and digital (HDMI) Adequate IT/LAN connection

Poor connectivity, unreliable, no digital connection

Management Automated analysis and centralized management dashboard, connected to the central “Fusion” AV dashboard

“Sneaker”/phone-call management

Suitability Appropriate for size and use Under or over-sized or not meeting use

Figure 6-02: Criteria for Evaluating TechnologyA summary of the parameters used to evaluate classroom technology on the UW campus.

For each space and each of these six criteria, detailed analysis generated a score. These scores were then combined to generate an overall technology score for each space. An example overview of the scoring methodology is summarized in the following table (Figure 6-03):

June 2014116


Figure 6-05: Upper Campus General Assignment Technology AssessmentA pie-chart summary of the Classroom Technology Assessment of the UW Upper Campus.Compare with target values in Figure 6-04. (Data Source: 2013 CTE Database, see Appendix for complete data.)

6.4 Classroom Technology Assessment:

Profile of a “Healthy” Peer Institution

The following criteria define a healthy classroom technology environment (Figure 6-04):• A 5-7 year replacement cycle on classroom audiovisual systems (including

AV control systems, lecture capture, distance learning, and equipment managed by CTE).

• Every teaching/learning space has audiovisual equipment permanently installed.

• Technology is reasonably (within the replacement cycle) standardized across all rooms, particularly control interfaces.

• All rooms five years old or younger have networked control systems that monitor use and state of attached equipment and report to a central management “dashboard.”

• All rooms support both traditional analog (VGA) connectivity as well as the new standard digital (HDMI) connectivity.

With these characteristics approximately 83% of classrooms will have current technology and less than 16% will be due for an upgrade. While technology is not 100% reliable, the “healthy” practices listed above typically yield less than 1% of classrooms with failing / critical technology at any time.

This typical profile is substantiated by the practices of other peers, including those listed in Section 4 and also listed in the appendix. After the economic crisis of 2008-2009 (discussed further in section 4), many of the peers diverged from these practices but returned after an intense period of recovery from deferred maintenance.

UW Classroom Technology Condition

In contrast to the model above, of the 306 general assignment classrooms on the Upper Campus 55% are in critical condition (12% have no technology at all, 16% are obsolete or in disrepair, and 27% are served for technology off dedicated AV carts). 27% of the classrooms are due for update, and 18% are in “current” condition (Figure 6-05).

Figure 6-04: Healthy Classroom Technology ProfileA pie-chart representation of the Classroom Technology Assessment for an institution with a 5-7 year Technology Lifecycle Policy, showing that 83% of all classrooms are in excellent condition and a remaining 16% are in good/usable condition but will be obsolete within a few years.(Data Source: 2013 ANSI Best Practices, Assessment Study Evaluation Model)

The assessment on the Health Sciences Campus includes 70% of the 43 General Assignment Classrooms in critical condition (2% without technology, 63% obsolete or in disrepair, and 5% served from AV carts). 28% of the classrooms on the Health Sciences Campus that are due for update, and 2% have current technology (Figure 6-06).

June 2014117


Modeling Future Capacity and the Prognosis for Classroom TechnologyDue to limited resources from 2009-2013, the annual refresh of classroom technology has not been able to keep pace with the needs on campus. Given the total number of technology-enabled rooms, data implies it would take 22 years to go through and upgrade the entire stock of classrooms on campus at this 2008-2013 rate.

This technology refresh process should be considered separately from service calls for repair: The continued field-repair and replacement of classroom equipment may extend the lifespan of some classroom systems, but cannot in general bring them up to current standards. For example: replacing a “dead” projector, even with an HDMI-capable projector, does not give the system HDMI capability without reprogramming the control system to manage an additional input and re-cabling for HDMI.

Included in the Appendix is a year-by-year composition of the UW classroom stock from the present through the next 22 years under the following assumptions:• No new buildings or renovations that change classroom numbers or refresh

classroom technology.• Classroom technology is refreshed at the same rate as in 2008 - 2013.• Classroom technology is funded at the same level as in 2008 - 2013 (with

inflation).

The starting position is the current classroom state for the Upper Campus shown in Figure 6-05. The model stabilizes in about 15 years, and the state after 22 years (the time interval required to renovate all of the existing 306 general assignment classrooms once) is shown in Figure 6-07.

Figure 6-06: Health Sciences Campus General Assignment Technology AssessmentA pie-chart summary of the Classroom Technology Assessment of the UW Health Sciences Campus.Compare with target values in Figure 6-04. (Data Source: 2013 HSAS&F Survey, see Appendix for complete data.)

Figure 6-07: Projection Model of Classroom Technology Condition Annually Until Fiscal Year 2036:A graphic representation of the start, annual iteration, and end-state classroom technology conditions on campus based on a computer projection of current UW performance on the Upper Campus.Little progress is forecasted.(Data Source: Assessment Team Computer Model, using 2013 UW performance figures. See Appendix)

NOTE: Subsequent to this study more funding was allocated for 2014 and a significantly higher number of rooms were addressed as a result.

June 2014118


After 22 years all the AV carts have gone obsolete or failed, there are still 12% of rooms without technology, and 48% of the classrooms are obsolete and in disrepair. There are only 8% ready for upgrade that are not critical, and 32% are up to standard. This outcome indicates a deferred maintenance and/or unsustainable capacity. The support cost for this condition would far exceed value, and faculty dissatisfaction would be endemic. Student satisfaction would be impacted, as would faculty hiring.

For the Health Sciences Campus, classroom technology servicing is provided (or procured) by the Academic Services and Facilities Department. Over the past few years classroom technology renovation for the HSC has been carried as part of the general classroom repairs; the large majority of these items are equipment service or partial updates to existing systems. A regular pattern of renovating with new technology systems in HSC classrooms cannot be modeled.

6.5 Classroom Technology Recommendations

Building New IT Systems, Infrastructure, and Processes to Support Classrooms

This report is an assessment of the learning environment; the technology that impacts classrooms is largely related to the audiovisual equipment.

In general the IT component (e.g. internet access, wireless LAN) of each classroom is adequate, and the UW-IT group is well underway with a number of strategic infrastructure upgrades.

However, there are some elements of the campus-wide IT infrastructure that have impacts at the classroom level and should be addressed. Many of the spaces have outdated IT infrastructure that will not support modern teaching initiatives (centralized technology support, course capture, Distance Learning, etc.) and servicing that infrastructure is complicated by other building conditions (asbestos, outdated/undersized pathways, etc.). These items are accurately assessed in the IT “Building Evaluation” system. Increased funding and coordination with other stakeholders (facilities, planning, and campus architecture) is recommended to assist UW-IT in completing these phases of the strategic plan.

The October 2011 IT Strategic Plan lists seven goals, of which one is of particular significance: Goal 4 Innovative Teaching and Learning Tools: provide technology to support and improve the learning experience. • Two sub-goals are particularly relevant:

º “Advanced and easy-to-use technologies are available in learning spaces for collaboration, video-editing, audio production, etc.”

º “Easy integration of multimedia and interactivity into courses”

June 2014119


In support of its goals, UW-IT reorganized in 2012 and Classroom Technology and Events (CTE, previously known as Classroom Support Services) became a part of UW-IT. As the merger continues, the migration of CTE processes to central IT management systems (such as help desk/trouble ticket, service calls, and maintenance data records/analysis functions) is recommended (and is per current IT/CTE plans). This will give UW-IT a better picture of the patterns and trends of service calls, which may help steer the resources and outreach of the CTE group in the future.

Improving Strategic Management of the UW Classroom Stock

The current processes are inadequate for maintaining the technology in the 306 general access classrooms. Analysis of usage data detailed earlier in the report indicate that some of the demand for maintenance can be addressed by schedule policies that would reduce the need for classrooms (Figure 6-08).

Figure 6-08: Scheduling Policy Impact on Classroom Technology Funding and IT Department CapacityThe following table outlines the impact scheduling policy has on the funding and workload of UW-IT, as described below:Campus Parameters: The first two table rows summarize current conditions on each campus. “UW Seattle, Combined” row is the total of both campuses (relevant if UW pursues a more centralized management). The next two table rows represent each campus with a recommended 50-hour week and 15 minute pass time between classes, with both totaled in the last row.The impact of each Campus Parameter is shown on the estimated number of classrooms, required quantity of annual renovations, annual technology renovation costs, and growth required in the UW IT group (compared to 2013 operations) in order to sustain those rooms.As an example, UW Classroom Technology costs on the Upper Campus may be reduced by $240,000 (or more) annually by implementing optimal course scheduling policies and sizing rooms. (Source: 2013 Classroom Assessment Data. See Sections 1.0, 3.0, 5.0 for more information on policies.)

However, the shortfall in upgrade capacity may be more than can be addressed with schedule policies alone. Firstly, it will take time to implement policies and see the resulting impact on classroom demand. Secondly, it is unlikely that the issues of deferred maintenance and insufficient technology refresh capacity can be resolved with a reduction in classroom quantities alone.

UW may need to both strategically manage the number of general access classrooms and increase the capacity to upgrade (or regularly update) the technology within them. If more resources are combined between the campuses, additional demands may be put on CTE to assist the Health Sciences Campus in servicing and renovating their classroom technology. While UW as a whole would benefit from the economy of scale of unified/standardized resources, this would only add pressure to CTE’s need to expand to meet demand.

June 2014120


Scaling up Classroom Technology Renovation to Meet Demand

UW has a strong design/build team for classroom technology, but if there are not enough resources to meet demand there are three common paths for expanding the classroom technology integration on-campus (Figure 6-09):

• Option 1: Growing the CTE department in-house• Option 2: Procuring contracts with outside providers • Option 3: A “surge” tactic, or some hybrid of in-house and outsourced

installation

Option 1: Growing the CTE department in-house:

Historically (as of Fall 2013) resources have been insufficient to update classroom technology at a sustainable rate. In this scenario, CTE staff and office resources are increased to the size required to keep the classroom technology close to peer targets.

There are several advantages to keeping the installations in-house: UW has found that installations performed by others do not meet its standards. Such installations have therefore required more work to fix and maintain than the quality installations that Classroom Technology and Events performs. In addition to the advantages above, UW may experience a greater cost savings; current CTE integrated system costs are 35%-50% below the contractor market in the Pacific Northwest.

However, current classroom quantity and 2008-2013 performance indicates that significant CTE growth (200 – 400%, depending on room quantities) is required. This rate of growth may take time to achieve, and may negatively impact install quality and/or the time before UW classroom stock as a whole is brought up to standard.

Figure 6-09: Illustration of 3 Methods for Increasing Classroom Technology CapabilityAn approximate illustration of the three strategies described:• Option 1 shows the timeline of

renovation activity as UW-IT in-house staff (in gold) expand to meet demand.

• Option 2 shows the timeline for outsourcing (in Purple) some or all renovation activity

• Option 3 shows the timeline for a “Surge” approach

June 2014121


Option 2: Procuring contracts with outside providers:

In this scenario, contracts are procured with professional classroom integration firms in order to replicate/supplement installation as specified by Classroom Technology and Events.

This scenario provides an alternate means of executing classroom renovations that can meet the annual demand without disrupting CTE core service/maintenance activities. UW could capitalize on CTE capabilities to design/specify/oversee services provided by the contractors to ensure compliance with standards. Contractors are used for this work in new construction; UW may be able to create innovative performance-based or retainer-based long-term contracts with outside vendors to mitigate previous issues with poor cable termination and system integration.

However, 2013 contractor market pricing indicates that UW may have higher overhead costs for installations provided by outside contractors, compared to CTE services. In addition, this option will require a change in operating procedure; there may be some transition period as the CTE group moves from an in-house design/build approach to a design/specify/oversight partnership. Some costs may also be recovered by utilizing the in-house CTE group for system designs (and contract documents) in new buildings in lieu of an outside design consultant or design/build integrator.

Option 3: A “Surge” Tactic or Outsourced/In-house Hybrid

This scenario is a blend of Option 1 and Option 2. While a static hybrid (CTE services supplemented with contractor work to meet annual demand) is viable, UW may prefer to model this approach after a deferred maintenance program: outside resources are used to “surge” supply over typical annual demand and achieve goals earlier. Once goals are met the supply of classroom renovation services is reduced to a sustaining level. At some point UW may wish to transition some or all of the classroom technology renovation from outside contractors to in-house CTE staff expanded to meet sustainable practices.

This strategy allows UW to utilize contractors “just-in-time” to make improvements in a reduced time-frame. This initial contractor phase may also provide the UW-IT/UW-CTE group needed “down-time” to implement initiatives and recruit the additional staff required to sustainably renovate the total UW classroom stock.

However, the “surge” portion of the strategy represents a higher initial capital cost, with higher overhead, to use outside contractors.

June 2014122


Formalizing and Documenting Technology Standards

Based on initial findings (see Section 6.2) CTE has not adequately captured or communicated its own best practices. CTE should formalize and issue a classroom technology standard document (similar in format to the CSS 2009 report) incorporating the latest standards and goals.

Building on the initial classroom technology standard release, a longer-term process should include collaboration with other stakeholders, including: Faculty (and relevant committees), Academic Technology (and relevant committees), Campus Planning, Campus Architect, Facilities. A productive standards document memorializes the experience and knowledge gained from UW’s own staff and faculty. A more comprehensive classroom design standard would document policies developed in collaboration with other committees and stakeholders, including BYOD (bring your own device) / wireless classroom response and interactivity practices, active learning classrooms, and other specialized academic technologies that CTE has established (in collaboration with other stakeholders and committees) on campus.

The technology standard can be used as (or adapted into) a standard specification to require that any work with outside contracted classroom technology integrators comply with in-house best practices. Documentation may also be used as a tool for the Planning/Projects offices in ensuring compliance from other service providers (architects, electrical engineers/contractors, and other specialty low-voltage service providers).

A campus technology design standard should be maintained and updated every two years or more frequently. The last comprehensive technology standard was issued in 2008 and does not match the current framework table. A more regular and intentional process is needed to sunset obsolete technologies and track the investigation, introduction, and implementation of emerging technologies into the UW pedagogical and classroom design common practice.

Figure 6-10: Revised Projection Model of Classroom Technology Condition Annually (With Policy Improvements) Until Fiscal Year 2036:A graphic representation of the start, annual iteration, and end-state classroom technology conditions on campus based on a computer projection of UW performance on the Upper Campus after implementing policy and funding recommendations.Conditions meet or exceed peers within 7 years, the model is run for 22 years for comparison with Figure 6-07. (Data Source: Assessment Team Computer Model, using 2013 UW Classroom Assessment Data and a 7-year system lifecycle. See Appendix)

June 2014123


Establishing (and Renovating to) a Classroom Technology Lifecycle

UW should implement as policy a regular replacement cycle for technology in the classroom.

During development of this report, stakeholders and the assessment team have used a 7-year policy as a target framework (Figure 6-10). While this is on the long side for peer replacement cycles, it is within a reasonable cycle of technological innovation and the typical life span/mean time before failure of most modern components. A longer renovation cycle, or failure to meet the proposed targets, will result in further decline of classroom conditions.

Funding Technology Renovation Strategically

Examination of annual spending from 2009 – 2013 suggests that UW is underfunding the regular renovation of classroom technology. The typical healthy peer is renovating one-quarter to one-eighth of the entire classroom stock per year (see Section 4.0, Classroom Technology Peer Analysis).

In this peer comparison, a common ratio of roughly $4,500 - $5,000 per the total number of classrooms is spent annually on classroom renovations. As an example, in an average year a state university with 100 classrooms will spend approximately $480,000 a year (2013 dollars) to refresh the classroom technology systems that have reached the end of their life-cycle.(Note that in 2009 CTE/CSS spent roughly the same amount, despite having over 300 classrooms to maintain).

Analysis of utilization indicates a “right-sized” classroom count for UW of roughly 260-290 classrooms (see Section 5.0 for more specific guidelines). Based on peer and industry guidelines, a minimum budget of roughly $1,250,000 - $1,400,000 is required annually, on average, solely for UW-CTE integration of new technology in Upper Campus classrooms that have reached end-of-life. This funding guideline does not include operations costs such as responding to service calls or other operations in the UW-IT/UW-CTE mission. If current conditions indicate deferred maintenance, additional funds may be required to reach a “healthy condition” status (see Scaling Up recommendations in this section).

As of Fall 2013, the funding process for CTE is too irregular and convoluted to accurately assess the impact this would have on their budget. Numbers for technology refresh are combined with costs for service calls and emergency repairs (amongst other services), and revenue sources include irregular allocations of biennium budgets, cost recovery from rentals/event support, student fees, and other capital and operating funds.

In addition, investigation of the CTE classroom technology renovation process revealed that despite equipment and installation costs 35%-50% below market value CTE was tasked with coordinating contributions from other trades (electrical power/pathways, furniture, drapes/blinds/carpets) that may be driving costs to 30% over estimates, per classroom. In many peer institutions, these initiatives are coordinated centrally (by the Architect or Planning Office) and the classroom technology department budget is not used to fund adjacent services.

June 2014124


In general the budget climate is not conducive to (has historically inhibited) the ability of IT/CTE staff to develop long-term strategic plans and execute them. Additionally, the CTE department has not been able to grow to meet increased demand at the same rate that technology-rich classrooms have been deployed on campus (e.g. new building construction). A special annual budget allocation for room technology refresh may need to be issued separately from (and in addition to) the current operating/capital budget of the group. A long-term, more transparent, and segregated accounting process may also be needed but may not be possible until proper resources are given to each task in CTE’s mission.

The appendix section provides a more in-depth exploration of funding figures, and the Executive Summary includes a broader review of the relationship between scheduling policies, classroom quantities, required annual classroom technology funding, and impact on CTE capacity.

Expanding and Diversifying the Classroom Technology Portfolio

Another of the UW-IT goals (number 2) calls for “Improved Collaboration and Productivity Tools,” including the goal that “Multi-point Web and videoconferencing is easy and works well.”

In addition to deferred maintenance, UW appears to be lagging behind its peers in emerging and alternative classroom modalities. As noted in previous sections, UW is behind peer benchmarks on a number of common academic technologies including lecture capture and videoconferencing/distance learning (See Section 4.0)

UW has two active learning classrooms designed for experimental teaching and learning (including flipping the classroom), a quantity that does not meet instructor demand nor peer levels. More high-tech spaces are needed on campus to reduce the demand on the two Odegaard Active Learning classrooms and provide faculty members with more opportunity for pedagogical innovation. This should not be an inverted process of design it first and see if it’s used: CTE and other learning environment stakeholders should engage in a regular dialog/formal process to envision and pilot these new opportunities (See Formalizing and Documenting Technology Standards Section).

However, the campus classroom registration system does not currently have the finesse to track a broad range of classroom technology feature-sets/functions and allocate them to classes as needed. Currently this is negotiated in a complicated multi-step process as a collaboration between the registrar and CTE (manually, across several iterations of R25 and spreadsheet cross-references). This process complicates matching needs to classroom capabilities (and takes management resources away from CTE). In concert with the new learning technology initiatives above, UW should improve its Registrar and classroom assignment capabilities (e.g. upgrade the registration system/database) so that room features (and pilot/experimental classrooms) are quickly and easily assigned to educators with curricula for those spaces.

June 2014125


At a minimum, all general assignment classrooms should have the capability to present instructor content (from the instructor’s laptop) to a display and for internet access (wired where needed though not at every seat, and wireless). 100% deployment of this technology will support the top technology requirement of UW faculty (See Section 4.0) and alleviate pressure on the registrar to track and assign rooms based on fundamental instructor needs.

June 2014126


June 2014127

7.0 RecommendationsUniversity of Washington / Learning Space Assessment

7.0 Recommendations









9 - TECHNOLOGY STANDARDIZATIONEstablish/Formalize technology standards to coordinate with classroom stakeholders and govern future projects




SCHEDULING TECHNOLOGYPHYSICAL SPACE

The recommendations developed with the task force capture the range of topics that would place the UW among its peer institutions in terms of facility utilization, hours of operation and support for technology and innovation in teaching methodologies. The organization of the list represents a recommended order of priority but it is not intended to suggest that any of the items should or could be excluded. The recommendations are to be seen as an interrelated group with each offering advantages but which combined, offer the greatest advantage.

June 2014128



BENEFITS

• Unified, strategic vision for the variety and configuration of learning spaces across Upper Campus and Health Sciences.

• Efficient use of resources to reduce duplication of effort and increase economies of scale.

• Avoid gaps in responsibility and accountability.• Consolidate planning efforts to reduce unexpected and

unbudgeted activities.

CHALLENGES

• Identifying committee members and allocating time in their schedule for this project, particularly in the early phases.

• A tendency toward “institutional inertia” can make change difficult.

• This process requires commitment and support from a wide cross-section of UW stakeholders.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Inefficient use of funds and greater drain on UW resources.

• Poor alignment between the condition of UW classrooms and institutional goals, with a widening gap as time passes.

• User and stakeholder dissatisfaction relative to the quality, availability, and amenities in the learning environments on campus.

DRIVERS

• Managing the complex interrelationships between administrative coordination, scheduling, funding, and academic excellence has been challenging.

• There is a need for better-established standards, policies, and practices for the learning environments.

• Classrooms are currently physically and technologically inconsistent and do not meet UW pedagogical vision or peer standards.

STRATEGIES

• Establish a Classroom Governance Committee as the central point-of-contact for all classroom discussions. The group will meet on a designated schedule and will include representation from faculty, administration, and other stakeholders including, but not limited to: Office of Planning and Budget/Office of the Architect, Facilities, Center for Teaching and Learning, UW-IT classroom technology, and the Registrar.

• Strengthen a central administration point (possibly a designated specialist in the Planning Office/Office of the Architect) to consult and facilitate the group, and coordinate classroom improvements.

• Formalize the cooperative relationship between Upper Campus and Health Sciences classroom technology groups with pooled/centralized resources and appropriate funding.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014129



BENEFITS

• A block schedule allows for more efficient use of classrooms by eliminating short periods of down-time throughout the day, and course scheduling can be substantially completed by software with minimal hand-scheduling.

• Sense that there are more classrooms available because clear time blocks will reduce conflicts and inefficiencies, opening up the schedule to slot courses throughout the day

• Students will be able to build their schedule with fewer conflicts because the majority of courses will fall into distinct blocks with minimal overlap.

• Increasing the pass time to 15 minutes enables students to travel from one building to another in between back-to-back classes, and allows more scheduling flexibility because courses need not be held in their “home” building due to time constraints.

• Additional time between classes also provides adequate time for the instructor to access the classroom before class to prepare materials and technology. After class there is an opportunity to interact with students.

CHALLENGES

• Cultural shift for faculty from a flexible scheduling philosophy to a stricter block schedule.

• Change in standard blocks from existing structure of 50-minutes starting on the half-hour to a different system.

• Increased pass time reduces available scheduling hours, and increases the number of required classrooms (assuming weekly scheduling window remains constant).

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Continued difficulty identifying available classrooms due to non-standard schedules.

• The 67 percent weekly room hour utilization target may be elusive because of inefficient scheduling.

DRIVERS

• Lack of defined scheduling grid; multiple overlapping scheduling options are available or faculty request unique scheduling patterns

• Faculty perception that there are not enough classrooms to support course schedule.

• Each quarter, the Office of the Registrar spends a significant amount of time hand-scheduling and shifting courses that cannot be roomed by software.

• Faculty and students find it difficult to travel across campus in 10 minutes between back-to-back classes.

STRATEGIES

• Develop a clearly-defined block schedule that assigns specific times and days to each block.

• Adjust class duration to consistently reflect the number of meeting days (e.g. Monday, Wednesday, Friday courses meet for 50 minutes per day, and Tuesday, Thursday courses meet for 75 minutes each day).

• Create specific blocks to support three-credit vs. four-credit courses or labs.

• Build in a 15-minute pass time between blocks on all days.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014130



BENEFITS

• Increase classroom utilization efficiency by scheduling throughout the day and week.

• Distributing courses throughout the day and week will achieve a better match between course enrollment and classroom (e.g., size, configuration, amenities).

• Reduce responsibility of and requirement for scheduling office to meet all scheduling and classroom requests each quarter.

CHALLENGES

• Faculty are accustomed to a flexible schedule and receiving requested schedule.

• Compliance must be monitored and generally mandated.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Significant, labor-intensive hand-scheduling to accommodate day and time requests.

• Perception that there is an insufficient number of classrooms, in great part due to a disproportionate number of requests for classrooms during peak hours.

• The need for more classrooms to meet the higher demand during peak times, which equates to higher capital and operational costs.

DRIVERS

• Courses are frequently scheduled in classrooms inappropriately matched (in size, type, or technology) in an effort to accommodate schedule requests, particularly during peak periods.

• The Office of the Registrar must hand-schedule many courses each quarter, particularly for peak time periods.

• Instructors feel frustrated because they are not scheduled in their top-choice classroom (location, type, size, technology) during their requested time frame.

• Many courses are held during peak hours, presenting some challenges for students to create a schedule, given the higher concentration of courses within a smaller scheduling window. (This is currently compounded by the lack of a uniform scheduling block system.)

STRATEGIES

• Establish a peak period, such as 9:30 a.m. through 3:00 p.m., and the remaining hours are considered off-peak

• Place responsibility on each department to schedule/request a particular percentage of courses during off-peak hours.

• Schedule requests and calculation of peak-off-peak distribution must be submitted to the scheduling office by a certain date for the upcoming quarter.

• Offer requested classrooms for courses scheduled in off-peak times. By upgrading classrooms as a result of this study, additional desirable classrooms will be available for these courses.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014131



BENEFITS

• Decreases the number of classrooms needed to support courses.

• A reduction in classrooms equates to a lower technology and renovation budget.

• Increases scheduling flexibility by offering additional class times.

CHALLENGES

• Cultural shift for faculty and students with earlier and later course times.

• Adjustments to current course schedule of courses starting on the half-hour.

• Increase in schedule for maintenance staff and for operational costs such as heating/cooling and electricity to have buildings open earlier and later in the day.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Continued capital and operational costs to fund existing classrooms in the current volatile financial climate.

• Less flexibility and class time offerings.

DRIVERS

• Physical and financial resources are at a premium, and the UW wants to implement strategies to use these resources more efficiently.

• Faculty perception that there are not enough classrooms to support the course schedule.

• Benchmarking of research universities shows a longer scheduling window to accommodate course load and fully utilize classrooms.

STRATEGIES

• Develop a course schedule that shifts courses to earlier and later in the day.

• Schedule most desirable or instructors’ first-choice classrooms for off-peak class times.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014132



BENEFITS

• Classrooms move toward contemporary standards by creating a more collaborative environment for students and instructors.

• Right-sizing offers flexibility in configuration, the ability to comfortably accommodate a suite of technology, and allows for “breathing room.”

• Offers an opportunity to meet a portion of classroom demand with the existing inventory of rooms with a non-capital option.

CHALLENGES

• Right-sizing must be completed as part of a holistic implementation plan for classrooms to be sure course capacity needs are met for each quarter.

• Certain classrooms contain a critical number of seats to meet course enrollments and are not easily right-sized.

• Faculty members are accustomed to teaching in particular classrooms with a standard number of students. Changing the capacity of classrooms may force instructors to change their course enrollment caps or classroom.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Cramped classrooms are less desirable, affecting perception of quality.

• Classrooms do not meet generally-accepted guidelines and standards.

• Current classroom stock does not meet need in terms of capacity ranges (right-sizing could alleviate some of these needs).

DRIVERS

• Many classrooms have extremely tight seating, making rooms less desirable because they feel cramped and crowded.

• Too many seats in a room make it difficult to reconfigure seats for group work, for the instructor to circulate in the room, and for students to enter and exit their seats with minimal disruption to others.

STRATEGIES

• Identify classrooms that would support the recommended portfolio of room capacities if they were right-sized.

• Seek classrooms that would become notably more desirable with the appropriate number of seats. These rooms may already be centrally located or have upgraded technology and amenities. Prime candidates are classrooms that have been slated for renovation based on other findings of this study.

• Develop a phasing plan for right-sizing classrooms that supports the overall portfolio of classrooms at each juncture.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014133



BENEFITS

• More transparency in accounting• More proactive and more long-term planning ability,

less reactive processes.• Better funding, more efficient use of funds.• No deferred maintenance, all classroom technology

is operational, current, and complies with campus standards.

CHALLENGES

• Institutional Inertia: the biennium funding scheme is not solely a UW-driven process.

• Coordination and Governance• The recent funding climate

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Continuing the cycle of UW classroom conditions trailing peer benchmarks by underfunding.

• Uncoordinated or incomplete classroom renovations, inefficient use of funds

• Unnecessarily high funding due to unnecessarily high quantities of general assignment classrooms.

DRIVERS

• The current funding system inhibits strategic planning and starves IT of resources, forcing delayed/deferred maintenance for classroom technology: Primary funding for new classroom technology is on a highly erratic biennium basis; supplemental funding sources are unreliable and require an extensive needs-case-basis process for procurement

• IT costs are impacted when related work by others (additional power, cable, carpet, furnishings, shades, etc.) is required.

STRATEGIES

• Provide a regular (or more predictable) source of funding for IT, particularly for strategic classroom technology renovation.

• Establish an administrative lead for coordinating adjacent work by others that should be provided under separate funding.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014134


BENEFITS

• Classrooms are refreshed before significant end-of-life of equipment, making them easier to support with fewer service calls.

• Technology is more reliable and easy to use.• Expanded CTE group may improve overall system

standardization; outside contractors may free capacity in CTE for upgrading high-profile spaces or focusing on pilot/experimental classrooms.

CHALLENGES

• Scaling up to meet demand and address deferred maintenance issues in a timely manner

• Funding• Coordination and communication with other classroom

stakeholders• Accountability, Adherence to the policy over time

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Continuing the cycle of UW classroom conditions trailing peer benchmarks with insufficient resources or poor strategy.

• Unnecessarily high funding due to unnecessarily high quantities of general assignment classrooms.

• Inefficient use of funds.

DRIVERS

• Current processes are inadequate for maintaining the technology in the current set of general access classrooms. Many systems are aging and failing.

• Resources and renovation are allocated on a reactive basis due to inconsistent/inadequate funding

• UW has a strong design/build team for classroom technology, but it is not large enough to meet demand.

STRATEGIES

• Implement as policy a seven-year replacement cycle for technology in the classroom. This is on the long side for peer replacement cycles.

• Increase UW capacity (in-house and/or outsourced) to renovate classroom systems as required to meet demand (based on the replacement cycle and amount of classroom stock).

• Reduce the gap in demand by optimizing the number of general assignment classrooms per utilization and schedule.


Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014135



BENEFITS

• Faculty have drop-in support available to them for technology issues, and additional workshops could focus on curriculum and pedagogy.

• A required workshop for ALC instructors emphasizes the distinct differences with teaching in those rooms; it is more than just a high-tech classroom.

CHALLENGES

• Locating space to house the new Center. • Staffing the Center and holding additional workshops

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Instructional technology, particularly in Active Learning Classrooms, has been purchased, installed, and maintained but is not used to full potential.

• Faculty are hesitant to experiment with technology because the perception is that it is intimidating and time-consuming to incorporate into classes.

• Pedagogy and curriculum may lag behind peers and current trends.

DRIVERS

• The addition of the Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs) has increased the desire and need for innovative curriculum and pedagogy.

• Anticipation of demand for more ALCs.• The existing Center offers a range of workshops,

though there is no full-time support for curriculum and technology.

• Instructors self-select to participate in workshops, and often the same enthusiastic individuals attend the sessions.

STRATEGIES

• Establish a full-time Center for Teaching and Learning with a small staff for drop-in support.

• Offer additional sessions of the most popular workshops.

• Require instructors teaching in ALCs to take a workshop on developing curriculum and pedagogy for a collaborative classroom.

• Consider a peer training or mentoring program, as faculty indicated they learn best from (and are most comfortable with) their peers.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014136


9 - TECHNOLOGY STANDARDIZATIONEstablish/Formalize technology standards, in coordination with classroom stakeholders, to govern future projects

BENEFITS

• Memorializes the experience and knowledge gained from UW’s own staff and faculty.

• Coordinates the efforts and vision of stakeholders.• Coordinates with other trades and outsourced service

providers, improving unified efforts and compliance.

CHALLENGES

• Resources: This process requires effort and time beyond CTE daily operations

• Coordination• Communication

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Incoherent standards and practices for the UW learning environment

• Poor coordination and learning innovation. The classroom conditions and classroom technology do not support the pedagogical needs of UW.

• Inefficient use of funds.

DRIVERS

• Little awareness outside of CTE that there are archetypal classroom technology system types and strategic vendor/manufacturer partnerships

• The last comprehensive technology standard does not match the current framework table.

• No formal documentation to memorialize current UW best practices, no means to consolidate best practices and in corporate knowledge from multiple stakeholders.

STRATEGIES

• CTE should document the current classroom technology design standard(s) with sufficient detail to share with the campus community.

• Initiate Classroom Governance Committee to develop and produce a comprehensive strategic classroom design process, in dialog with CTE.

• Regularly update classroom standards and planning documentation.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014137



BENEFITS

• Supports curriculum and encourages out-of-classroom learning by providing space for student gathering.

• Utilizes “found space” by creating small study areas.

CHALLENGES

• Costs associated with needed renovations and upgrades.

• Locating space for new informal study areas.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Students lack sufficient space to collaborate and study independently.

• Lack of adequate informal learning spaces limits the ability to strengthen community through interaction.

DRIVERS

• Up to 70 percent of student learning occurs outside of the formal classroom environment.

• Most disciplines build group projects into the curriculum and students need space to congregate and work together.

• Millennial students tend to collaborate more than previous generations.

• The demand for informal learning spaces has grown, particularly for groups.

STRATEGIES

• Continue to compile and assess SpaceScout data to understand desirable characteristics and locations of informal learning spaces.

• Identify existing “high potential” spaces that can be easily renovated to transform them into “high desire” spaces.

• Identify under-utilized classrooms and under-used nooks and spaces to carve out individual or group study rooms.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014138



BENEFITS

• Provides scheduling flexibility to departments by reducing peak/off-peak distribution requirements.

• Allows option for faculty to teach in “home” building.• Reduces late shifts to general-assignment classroom

schedule by placing requests early in the process.

CHALLENGES

• Formally scheduling proprietary classrooms reduces flexibility to use for other purposes.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Numerous last-minute changes to course schedule and location will continue, requiring additional labor-intensive hand-scheduling each quarter.

DRIVERS

• Departmentally-controlled, or proprietary, classrooms are available to many departments on campus for events, meetings, or to schedule courses.

• Proprietary classrooms are often used as a “fall-back” for courses scheduled in undesirable general-assignment classrooms. Last minute adjustments to schedule and classroom assignment increase the last-minute workload for the Office of the Registrar each quarter.

• Classrooms located in the respective “home” building of instructors are preferred.

STRATEGIES

• Review proprietary classroom schedules for all uses.• Permit courses scheduled in proprietary classrooms to

deviate from schedule distribution requirements.• Include requests for proprietary classrooms in the

departmental schedule distribution process to prepare and confirm general-assignment classroom schedule.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014139



BENEFITS

• Additional time to develop a more robust curriculum for each course.

• Standard student contact hours relative to credits to be supported by a block schedule.

• Simplified scheduling twice per year.• Provide flexibility and advantage for students by

offering a parallel schedule to other institutions; students can take courses on another campus and enter the job or internship market earlier, at the same time as other students.

CHALLENGES

• Cultural shift from quarter-based calendar where faculty are accustomed to between-quarter breaks at certain times of the year.

• Adjustment to distribution of faculty course loads.• Complete revamp of credits and curriculum to support

the semester model.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

• Course scheduling four times per year vs. three.• Students unable to complete for jobs and internships

as effectively as students at a semester-based institution.

DRIVERS

• Faculty and students must cover material in a condensed period of time with the quarter system.

• Scheduling courses four times per year is particularly time consuming.

• Peers and other benchmarks show a shift from quarters to semesters.

STRATEGIES

• Consider the academic and curricular changes required to migrate to a semester system.

• Provide faculty support to adjust courses to meet semester duration.

• Create standard student contact hours to ensure that the block schedule supports scheduling needs.

Teaching

Allocating

Scheduling

June 2014140


8.0 AcknowledgmentsUniversity of Washington / Learning Space Assessment

June 2014141

8.0 Acknowledgments

Campus meetings, informal sessions, surveys, one-on-one meetings, focused workshops, facility and campus tours were held in order to engage the campus community in a dialog about the future of the learning spaces on campus. The University of Washington administration, staff, faculty, and students were invited to participated in opportunities to provide input. Although not listed individually, there were many others who have been equally important to the process.

The University of Washington Task Force

David Anderson, Executive Director, Health Sciences AdministrationGerald Baldasty, Senior Vice Provost for Academic and Student AffairsRebecca Barnes, University Architect, Associate Vice Provost, Office of Planning & BudgetingJan Carline, Professor, Medical EducationEric Darst, Space Information Analyst, Office of Planning & BudgetingVirjean Edwards, University Registrar, Office of the RegistrarBob Ennes, Director - Finance & Administration, Health Sciences AdministrationRoberta Hopkins, Director, Classroom Technology & Events, UW Information TechnologyPaul Jenny, Vice Provost Planning and BudgetingBeth Kalikoff, Director, Center for Teaching and LearningJill McKinstry, Director, Odegaard Undergraduate LibraryPhilip Reid, Associate Vice Provost, UW-IT Academic ServicesIrene Sandvik, Administrative Specialist, Office of Planning and BudgetingJohn Seidelmann, Director of Capital and Space Planning, Office of Planning and BudgetingPamela Stewart, Executive Director, Planning & Facilities, UW Information TechnologyMatthew Winslow, Senior Associate Registrar, Policy and Procedure, Office of the Registrar

Consultants

Tim Williams, Principal, ZGF ArchitectsXue Hao, ZGF ArchitectsElizabeth Schultz, ZGF ArchitectsPersis Rickes, President/Principal, Rickes AssociatesLori DeRosa, Associate, Rickes AssociatesChris Timmerman, Space Planner/Programmer, Rickes AssociatesParke Rhoads, Principal, Vantage Technology Consulting GroupBob Kuhn, Senior Consultant, Vantage Technology Consulting Group

8.0 AcknowledgmentsUniversity of Washington / Learning Space Assessment

June 2014142

University of Washington Learning Space Assessment

Documents

Transcript of University of Washington Learning Space Assessment